Crestline Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
327 West Main Street, Crestline, OH 44827 · For profit - Corporation · 30 certified beds · (419) 683-3255 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 fell from 4 to 3 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 | 4.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 1.3% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 55.4% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.3% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.1% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.3% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.5% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 8.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.4% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 36.7% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.3% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 32% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 51% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 12.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 30 beds and averages 22.1 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.91 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.79 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2026-05-27 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the review of the staffing schedules, review of the timecard reports, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was designated as the Director of Nursing (DON) on a full-time basis and further failed to ensure an RN was working in the facility at least eight consecutive hours per day, seven days a week. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 21.Findings include:Review of the facility staff schedules and the staff timecards for the week of 05/03/26 through 05/09/26 revealed a Registered Nurse (RN) did not work on 05/07/26 and 05/08/26. Further review revealed a Director of Nursing (DON) was not present in the facility on 05/05/26 through 05/09/26.Interview on 05/26/26 at 11:41 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #55 revealed the facility did not currently have a DON. LPN #55 stated RN, DON #82 came every Wednesday to serve as both the DON, and a RN and DON #84 came two days a week to serve as the DON for the facility. LPN #55 was unable to recall any other persons serving as DON in the facility since RN,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-27 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure enteral tube feeding was administered per physician orders. This affected one (#22) of three residents reviewed for enteral tube feeding. The facility identified three residents not receiving any food by mouth and on enteral tube feeding. The facility census was 21.Findings include: Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/16/25 and a discharge date of 02/20/26. Diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris, type two diabetes mellitus without complications, peripheral vascular disease, squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, heart failure, cerebral infarction, and persistent vegetative state.Review of Resident #22's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 was comatose. Furthermore, Resident #22 received nothing by mouth, had a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) and required enteral feeding 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 · F2025-06-18 · 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 policy review, observation, completion of a test tray, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was served to the residents at palatable temperatures. This had the potential to affect 19 out of 21 residents who received meals from the facility. The facility identified two residents (#16 and #17) that received no food by mouth. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Observation of tray line on 06/18/25 from 7:25 A.M. through 7:58 A.M. revealed there was no pellet warmer, no plate warmer and food was above 164 degrees Fahrenheit (F) on the tray line. The food cart left the kitchen at 7:58 A.M. and arrived at the unit within a minute. Observation on 06/18/25 at 8:02 A.M. revealed Dietary Manager (DM) #210 stopped the breakfast tray pass and took temperatures. It was explained to DM #210 that after the last resident tray was delivered, food temperatures will be taken and documented on the test tray. When the last tray on the food cart was delivered on 06/18/25 at 8:06 A.M., DM #210 went to take the temperature of the food and stated 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 · E2025-06-18 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 resident and staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to timely notify the physician of the resident's changes in condition and/or abnormal laboratory results. This affected five (#4, #7, #16, #18, and #19) of five residents reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 21. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included gastrostomy tube and dysphagia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had gastrostomy, had a feeding tube, had weight loss, and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of the care plan dated 03/19/25 revealed Resident #16 was at risk for impaired nutritional status. Interventions included percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube feedings and supplements via PEG tube as ordered by the physician. Review of the physician orders for Resident #16 dated 09/14/22 revealed an order for nothing by…
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 · E2025-06-18 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacy recommendations had a rationale documented as to why the physician did not agree with the recommendation. This affected four (Residents #2, #15, #18, and #20) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 21. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed a readmission date of 03/20/21. Diagnoses included major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 had intact cognition, and received medications including an antidepressant. Review of the monthly pharmacy recommendations to the attending physician dated 05/31/25 revealed the pharmacist made a recommendation to evaluate Imipramine (treats depression) 50 milligram (mg) for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) to 25 mg by mouth every evening. The physician addressed the pharmacist recommendations on 06/03/25 that he disagreed with the GDR…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care plan meetings consisted of interdisciplinary team members determined by the residents' needs and failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representative were invited to attend the quarterly care conference meetings. This affected one (#3) of two residents reviewed for care plan meetings. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Record review for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 03/01/24. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired and required staff assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the previous 12 months of care conferences for Resident #3 revealed a care conference was held 08/24/24. Attendees included the Director of Nursing (DON), Activities, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Record review for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included anoxic brain damage, retention of urine, and paraplegia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and Resident #16 had an indwelling catheter. Review of the care plan last revised 04/07/25 revealed Resident #16 had an indwelling catheter. The goals included Resident #16 would show no signs or symptoms of urinary tract infections (UTI) through review date. Review of the infection log for the previous 12 months revealed Resident #16 had a UTI and received antibiotics on 08/26/24, 12/27/24, 03/10/25, and 04/16/25. Review of the physician orders for Resident #16 dated 01/13/25 revealed an order for catheter care every shift and as needed. Observation on 06/17/25 at 9:10 A.M. of catheter care for Resident #16 provided by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #215 revealed CNA #214 began catheter care by using a wet…
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 before2025-06-18 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was administered tube feeding through their percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) as physician ordered. This affected one (Resident #16) of one resident reviewed for tube feedings. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Record review for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included gastrostomy tube and dysphagia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had gastrostomy, had a feeding tube, had weight loss and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of the care plan dated 03/19/25 revealed Resident #16 was at risk for impaired nutritional status. Interventions included tube feedings and supplements via PEG tube as ordered by the physician. Review of the physician orders for Resident #16 dated 09/14/22 revealed an order for nothing by mouth (NPO) diet related to gastrostomy status. Vital 1.5 (tube feed…
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 · D2025-06-18 · 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 observations, staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed for the need for oxygen use and receive oxygen per the physicians orders. This affected one (Resident #3) of one resident reviewed for oxygen use. The facility identified three current residents who received oxygen administration. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Record review for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 03/01/24. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #3 was dependent for bed mobility and transfers and required staff assistance for all activities of daily living. Review of the care plan dated 05/15/23 revealed Resident #3 had COPD/seasonal allergies, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia and obstructive…
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 before2025-06-18 · 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
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications ordered by the physician were ordered and available for administration. The affected one (Resident #4) of four residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 07/16/21 with diagnoses including gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) without esophagitis. Review of the care plan last revised on 12/13/24 revealed Resident #4 has GERD related to inappropriate diet. Interventions included giving medications as ordered. Review of Resident #4's physician order revealed an order dated 11/08/24 for magnesium oxide oral tablet 400 milligrams (mg) (an over-the-counter (OTC) supplement), give one tablet by mouth twice daily for GERD. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2025 revealed Resident #4 did not receive her magnesium oxide as physician ordered on 06/10/25 at 5:00 P.M., 06/11/25 at 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., 06/12/25 at 9:00 A.M., and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 20 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of Medscape guidance, and review of the manufacturer directions, the facility failed to ensure the medication rate did not exceed five percent (%). There were two errors within 27 opportunities for an error rate of 7.41%. This affected two (Resident #16 and #24) of two residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 21. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 03/27/25. Diagnosis included type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 had diabetes mellitus and received insulin injections. Review of the care plan dated 03/28/25 revealed Resident #24 had diabetes mellitus type two with hyperglycemia. Interventions included accuchecks as ordered and administer medications. Review of the physician orders for Resident #24 dated 06/05/25 revealed insulin Lispro injection solution 100 units/milliliter…
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 before2025-06-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 Medscape guidance, and review of the manufacturer directions, the facility failed to prime an insulin pen per manufacturer instructions prior to administration, resulting in a significant medication error. This affected one (Resident #24) of two residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility identified eight residents who receive insulin. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Record review for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 03/27/25. Diagnosis included type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 had diabetes mellitus and received insulin injections. Review of the care plan dated 03/28/25 revealed Resident #24 had diabetes mellitus type two with hyperglycemia. Interventions included accuchecks as ordered and administer medications. Review of the physician orders for Resident #24 dated 06/05/25 revealed insulin Lispro…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was served at proper consistency for mechanical soft and ground meat diets. This had the potential to affect three residents (#4, #8, and #21) that were ordered either a mechanical soft or ground meat diet. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Observation on 06/18/24 at 7:37 A.M. revealed [NAME] #223 plated Resident #21's plate with sausage gravy and it was placed into the food cart. Dietary Manager (DM) #210 was asked to remove Resident #21's food tray from the food cart. Resident #21's sausage gravy was of regular consistency with the sausage cut into 1/2 inch pieces. DM #210 verified Resident #21's was on a mechanical soft diet and the meat should have been ground. DM #210 proceeded to put Resident #21's tray back into the food cart, then paused and grounded some sausage gravy for Resident #21 and the other mechanical and ground diets. The telephone interview on 06/18/25 at 11:49 A.M. with Speech Therapist #303 revealed it was her expectation to have ground meat like hamburger…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation in the medical record for one (Resident #16) of 28 medical records reviewed. Findings include: Record review for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnosis included anoxic brain damage, gastrostomy tube, dysphagia, and paraplegia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had gastrostomy tube. Review of the physician orders for Resident #16 revealed an order for nothing by mouth (NPO) diet related to gastrostomy status dated 09/14/22; Cerovite advanced formula liquid (multivitamin), give five teaspoons by mouth one time a day dated 03/15/25; Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg) by mouth once daily dated 03/16/2; and Acetaminophen tablet 325 mg give two tablets by mouth every four hours as needed for pain dated 12/02/24. Observation of medication administration on 06/17/25 at 8:04 A.M. revealed LPN #224 administered Resident…
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 · D2025-06-18 · 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff followed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) as ordered by the physician when completing high contact resident care activities with residents with indwelling medical devices and pressure ulcers. Additionally, the facility failed to follow the proper infection control practices during fingerstick checks and the shared glucometer was not properly cleaned and disinfected after use. This affected two residents (#16 and #24). The facility identified there were two residents who receive blood sugar checks utilizing the same glucometer and eight residents on EBP. The facility census was 21. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure, gastrostomy tube, pressure ulcer left and right buttocks stage four (Full thickness tissue loss…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-03 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility menus, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed. This affected all 19 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, and #22) residents who the facility identified as receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census is 22. Findings include: Review of the lunch menu for Friday, 05/03/24, identified baked fish, macaroni and cheese, creamy coleslaw, bread and butter, and Jello poke cake were planned to be served. Observation of the kitchen meal service on 05/03/24 at 11:50 A.M. revealed [NAME] #5 was observed to plate resident meals with fish, macaroni and cheese, creamy coleslaw, and Jello. The observation identified meal cart #1 left the kitchen on 05/03/24 at 12:00 P.M. and none of the trays included bread and butter as listed on the menu. Interview with Cooperate Dietary Manager #10 was completed on 05/03/24 at 12:05 P.M. in the hallway as the staff started delivering meal trays to the residents. Corporate Dietary Manager #10 confirmed the meal trays did not include bread…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended and unsecured in resident rooms. This affected one (#2) of three resident rooms observed. The facility census was 22. Findings include: Review of Resident #2's medical record identified her admission to the facility occurred on 12/19/20 with medical diagnosis including malnutrition, depression, pancreatic tumor, and esophageal stricture. The most recent comprehensive assessment completed on 03/04/24 identified Resident #2 was completely cognitively intact. Observation and interview with Resident #2 on 05/03/24 at 10:41 A.M. revealed a full cup of oral medications sitting on the resident's bedside stand with a cup of pudding. Interview with Resident #2 at that time confirmed the nursing staff usually set her medications down and leave them with her, and stated sometimes she just throws them in the trash. Review of Resident #2's medication administration record (MAR) for May 2024 revealed the residents morning…
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 before2024-03-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interview, and review of the menu and whiteboard, the facility failed to follow the prepared menus and failed to ensure the changes to the menu were approved by a qualified clinical nutrition professional for nutritional adequacy. This affected four of four meals reviewed during the survey. This had the potential to affect the 22 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 24. Finding include: Review of the facility's menu for Fall and Winter 2023 to 2024 revealed they menu was signed but it was unknown who the person was because it was not the Registered Dietitian (RD) for the facility. The lunch menu for Wednesday 03/13/24 was chicken barbeque, macaroni and cheese, baked beans, and a peanut butter bar. The white board (located in the hallway near the residents' rooms) revealed the residents would be receiving hamburger gravy, mashed potatoes, green beans, and pudding. The dinner menu for Wednesday 03/13/24 was taco salad, refried bean, lettuce and tomato, crackers, and cream pie. The white board revealed the residents were to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-08-25 · tag F0801 — patternEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of personnel files and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the dietary manager met required qualifications to manage the dietary department. This affected 19 of 20 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 20. Findings include: Review of the personnel file for Dietary Manager (DM) #36 revealed a hire date of 12/01/21. Further review of the file revealed no evidence DM #36 was a certified dietary manager, certified food service manager, or had similar national certification for food service management and safety, or had an associates or higher degree in food service management. Interview on 08/24/22 at 11:26 A.M. with the Business Office Manager (BOM) #37 verified DM #36 did not have any required training or certifications for the dietary manager position. Interview on 08/24/22 at 9:46 A.M. with Registered Dietician (RD) #69 revealed she worked at the facility 32 hours per month. Interview on 08/24/22 at 12:03 P.M. with DM #36 confirmed he previously worked in a restaurant prior to being hired at the facility in December 2021. DM…
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 before2022-08-25 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, review of facility menu, and review of food order invoice, the facility failed to follow the planned menu and failed to ensure alternatives were listed and approved by the dietician. This had the potential to affect 19 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility's census was 20. Findings include: Interview on 08/22/22 at 8:48 A.M. Resident #14 reported residents were not given menus to see what was served for meals to determine if they wanted the meal served or an alternative. Resident #14 stated if she was served a meal she did not like, she would order an alternative and have to wait until the meal was served to all residents before alternatives could be made. Alternatives were typically cold meat sandwiches. Review of the menu for 08/22/22 revealed lunch to be served was crispy baked chicken with sweet potatoes. Observation on 08/22/22 at 12:05 P.M. of Resident #14's lunch revealed mashed potatoes and diced chicken mixed with gravy was served, rather than the crispy baked chicken with sweet potatoes as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interviews, review of Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident verbal abuse. This affected one (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 20. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was cognitively intact. Review of the progress note dated 05/29/22 at 11:51 A.M. revealed Resident #8's roommate (Resident #10) was upset, cursing, and using racial slurs toward Resident #8 due to Resident #8's television (TV) volume. The nurse entered the room and Resident #10 reported he could not sleep due to Resident #8's TV volume. Resident #10 told the nurse, You're not doing me any good, so just get out. The nurse informed the residents she was unable to leave due to the altercation and for the safety of all parties. Resident #10 then turned over to go to sleep. The Director of Nursing (DON)…
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 · D2022-08-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of an allegation of resident-to-resident verbal abuse. This affected one (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 20. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was cognitively intact. Review of the progress note dated 05/29/22 at 11:51 A.M. revealed Resident #8's roommate (Resident #10) was upset, cursing, and using racial slurs toward Resident #8 due to Resident #8's television (TV) volume. The nurse entered the room and Resident #10 reported he could not sleep due to Resident #8's TV volume. Resident #10 told the nurse, You're not doing me any good, so just get out. The nurse informed the residents she was unable to leave due to the altercation and for the safety of all parties. Resident #10 then turned over to go to sleep. The Director of Nursing (DON) 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 · D2022-08-25 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure services were put into place to potentially prevent a decline in range of motion (ROM). This affected one (Resident #7) of one resident reviewed for ROM. The facility census was 20. Findings include: Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed an admission dated on 12/17/17 with a diagnosis of stroke. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments dated 04/04/22 and 07/01/22 revealed Resident #7 had limitations in ROM to one side of her body and required a restorative program and use of a splint. Review of the occupational therapy discharge instructions dated 04/04/22 identified a new splint was ordered for Resident #7's left hand and left ankle to assist with prevention of a decline in ROM. The starting goal was to wear the splints for 40 minutes a day. Observations on 08/22/22 at 8:32 A.M., 9:56 A.M., 12:19 P.M., and 3:22 P.M. revealed Resident #7's splint device for her left hand remained on a stand across the room. Resident #7 was not observed wearing the splint. Observations…
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 · D2022-08-25 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure blood pressure medication parameters were followed as ordered. Additionally, the facility failed to complete labs as for monitoring Coumadin use. This affected one (Resident #18) of give residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The facility census was 20. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record identified an admission date of 05/22/19 with medical diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, obesity, congestive heart failure and diabetes. Review of Resident #18's physician orders for August 2022 revealed an order for Lisinopril (medication used to treat blood pressure and heart failure) 30 milligrams (mg), twice a day (BID). There were parameters in place to hold the Lisinopril if the resident's systolic blood pressure was less than 120. Review of Resident #18's August 2022 medication regime included Lisinopril 30 mg BID (twice a day). The physician order for the Lisinopril had parameters to hold for a systolic blood pressure (top number of the blood pressure) less than 120.…
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 before2022-08-25 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of medication information, the facility failed to ensure ordered antipsychotic medication was available for Resident #19. This affected one (Resident #19) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 20. Findings include: Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/01/22 with medical diagnoses including bipolar disorder, adjustment disorder, lymphedema, obesity and chronic respiratory failure. The record identified Resident #19 had physician ordered Abilify 5 mg tablets twice a day for treatment of psychiatric disorders. Review of Resident #19's physician orders for August 2022 revealed an order for Abilify (antipsychotic) 5 milligrams (mg), twice per day for treatment of psychiatric disorders. Observation, interview, and record review of medication administration on 08/23/22 at 8:15 A.M. revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #31 was preparing medications for Resident #19. RN #31 reported Resident #19's Abilify was not available in the medication cart.…
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 · D2019-08-22 · 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 medical record review, staff interview and review of facility protocol, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment according to the bowel protocol for a resident. This affected one (Resident #18) of one resident reviewed for constipation. The facility census was 25. Findings include: Record review for Resident #18 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including severe intellectual disabilities, major depressive disorder and insomnia . Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/03/19, revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairments. She required total assistance of one person for toilet use. She was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the plan of care, last updated 07/08/19, revealed Resident #18 had bowel incontinence due to immobility, severe intellectual disabilities and a history of constipation. The interventions included checking the resident frequently and assisting with personal hygiene as needed and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow physicians orders to decrease the dosage of an antianxiety and antipsychotic medication resulting in an unobserved medication errors for Resident #1 and #5. This affected two (#1 and #5) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 25. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #1 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, delirium and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/08/19, the resident has short and long term memory loss. There was no psychosis, rejection of care, behaviors or psychotic diagnoses documented on the MDS. Review of the plan of care, dated 03/12/19, stated the resident uses psychotropic medications Risperdal (antipsychotic) due to diagnosis of dementia/delirium. The interventions include monitoring, documenting and reporting adverse…
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 · D2019-08-22 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to have a specific diagnoses or documented condition for the use of an antipsychotic medication for a resident. This affected one (Resident #1) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified seven residents as receiving antipsychotic medication. The facility census was 25. Findings include: Record review for Resident #1 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, delirium and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/08/19, revealed the resident had short and long term memory loss. No psychosis, rejection of care, behaviors or psychotic diagnoses were documented on the MDS. Review of the plan of care, dated 03/12/19, stated the resident used psychotropic medication Risperdal (antipsychotic) due to diagnosis of dementia/delirium. The interventions included monitoring,…
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 · D2019-08-22 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement antibiotic stewardship protocols for Resident #1 and #24 receiving long term use of prophylactic antibiotics. This affected two (#1 and #24) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The facility census was 25. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #1 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbances. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/08/19, revealed the resident has short and long term memory loss. Review of the plan of care, last revised on 06/07/19, stated Resident #1 has a history of frequent urinary tract infections with long term use of antibiotics. The goal was for the resident to be free of urinary tract infections. The interventions included giving the antibiotic as ordered to prevent urinary tract infections and monitor any change. Review of the monthly physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2019-08-22 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to place the recent survey results in an accessible place for resident and visitors to review without asking for staff assistance. This had the potential to affect all 25 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 08/20/19 at 3:37 P.M., interview with eight residents (#9, #10, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19 and #25) attending the Resident Council Meeting did not know where the state survey results were located in the facility. Resident #14 stated he would have to ask the nurse where the survey results were if he wanted to read them. Observation of the common areas on 08/20/19 at 3:50 P.M. revealed there was no survey results or any information indicating where the results were located. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #120 on 08/20/19 at 3:51 P.M. stated he did not know where the inspection reports were. Interview with Activity Director #13 on 08/20/19 at 3:55 P.M. stated the inspection results were kept in a blue binder at the nurses station. Observation at this time revealed 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.
“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 NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE GROUP — 6 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE OPERATING HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/18/2017 |
| BRAUNSTEIN BEARS 2016 TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| EL-NORTHWOOD LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE MANAGING MEMBER LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE MEMBER LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| OAKWOOD CONSULTING | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| FEUER, SAMUEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| ALESSI, ALLSION | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/24/2026 |
| PATTERSON, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| BRAUNSTEIN, BARRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/18/2017 |
| KATZ, LARRY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| LAHASKY, EPHRAM | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
| LESHKOWITZ, ELI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 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.
6 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.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $76K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 366002. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-18, 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.