Bath Creek Estates

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

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.

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.

45.2% 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 104 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 68 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 99 beds and averages 89.8 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
  Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interview and review of the manufacturer instructions, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Two errors were observed in 28 opportunities resulting in a 7.14 % error rate. This affected two residents (Resident #15 and #36) of six residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 94.Findings include:1. Record review for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 10/19/21. Diagnosis included diabetes mellitus due to underlying conditions with other specified complications.Review of the physician order dated 06/25/24 for Resident #36 revealed an order for insulin aspart units 100 insulin pen, 100 units per milliliter (ml) give 23 units subcutaneous (sq). Give with meals at 8:00 A.M.,12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 was cognitively intact. Resident #36 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and received insulin injections seven…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Based on record review, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), facility, facility investigation, employee personnel file, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #95 was free from staff-to-resident abuse. This affected one resident (#95) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 93.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #95 revealed an admission date of 05/11/25 and a discharge date of 10/16/25. Diagnoses included left femur fracture, hypertension, dementia with severe psychotic disturbance, abnormal gait/mobility, Alzheimer's disease, and aphasia (language disorder that impairs a person's ability to communicate effectively). Review of the five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #95 had severely impaired cognition, required assistance from staff with eating, 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — pattern
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure emergency call devices/call lights were within reach of Resident #12, #16, #20, #23 and #64. This affected five residents (#12, #16, #20, #23, #64, ) out of seven residents reviewed for emergency call devices within reach. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 02/28/25 with diagnoses including unspecified fall, wedge compression fracture of fifth lumbar vertebra, history of falling, severe protein calorie malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), osteolysis , and secondary malignant neoplasm (cancer) of bone. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/06/25, revealed Resident #20 was moderately impaired cognitively, was dependent on staff for activities of daily living and for all mobility, and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident had a fall in the last month prior to admission, had a fracture related to a fall in 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was implemented during medication administration for Resident's #18, #42, #43, #46 and #84 and during care for Resident #101. The facility also failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn during PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) tube care for Resident #46. This affected six residents (Resident's #18, #42, #43, #46, #84 and #101) and had the potential to affect an additional 37 residents (Resident's #3, #4, #6, #12, #17, #19, #21, #28, #33, #34, #36, #38, #40, #41, #46, #47, #49, #50, #54, #56, #58, #60, #63, #64, #66, #67, #70, #75, #79, #82, #83, #86, #88, #89, #91, #92, #94) residing on the 300 and 400 nursing units. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Observation on 03/12/25 at 7:35 A.M. of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #349 revealed LPN #349 was standing at the medication cart preparing medications to be administered to Resident #43. After LPN #349 prepared Resident #43's medications and placed the…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  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 #94 was provided incontinence care according to physician order and to maintain good hygiene for skin integrity. This affected one resident (Resident #94) out of three residents reviewed for incontinence. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of Resident #94's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/27/19 and diagnoses included heart failure, Parkinson's Disease, and dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety. Review of Resident #94's physician orders dated 10/26/23 revealed Resident #94 was to be checked and changed every two hours as tolerated every shift. Review of Resident #94's care plan dated 05/21/24 included Resident #94 was incontinent of bowel and bladder related to debility and dementia, and Resident #94 would not exhibit skin breakdown. Interventions included to report signs of skin breakdown or perianal…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place as ordered to prevent accidents for three residents (#23, #25, and #72) out of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 06/28/18 with diagnoses including severe protein calorie malnutrition, end stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, muscle weakness, anemia, cerebral infarction, anorexia, unsteadiness on feet, and bipolar disorder. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/01/25, revealed Resident #23 was severely impaired cognitively, rejected care one to three days of the assessment reference period, and was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living and required substantial/maximum assistance from staff for mobility. Review of the facility document titled John Hopkins Fall Risk assessments for Resident #23 revealed on 09/30/24 resident was at moderate…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-18 · tag F0800 — isolated
  Provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure Resident #25, #26 and #74 received sugar-free pancake syrup in accordance with their low concentrated sweets (LCS) therapeutic diet order to meet their needs. This affected three residents (#25, #26 and #74) out of three residents reviewed for food/nutrition. The facility identified 14 residents (#7, #12, #25, #26, #32, #34, #37, #45, #54, #58, #63, #69, #74 and #88) as receiving a LCS diet. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #74 revealed a current admission date of 02/08/25 and original admission date of 10/27/24. Pertinent diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, acquired absence of left foot, and morbid obesity diet to excess calories. Review of Resident #74's physician orders revealed an order dated 02/08/25 for a LCS (low concentrated Sweets) diet with large portions. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/14/25, revealed Resident #74 was cognitively intact, required set up 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide timely and necessary treatment for Resident #22 following laboratory testing that included a critically high sodium level to prevent a hospitalization. This affected one resident (#22) of three residents reviewed for laboratory testing. The facility census was 88. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission date of 07/10/18 with diagnosis including attention to gastrostomy (tube), severe protein-calorie malnutrition, acute kidney failure, end stage renal disease, dementia, bipolar disorder with current episode manic severe with psychotic features, and patient's noncompliance with other medical treatment and regimen. Review of the care plan dated 08/01/23 revealed Resident #22 had increased risk for nutritional status related to diagnosis of end state renal disease, dysphagia with risks associated with overall disease process, underweight, low body mass index (BMI)…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
  Provide 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, interview and facility policy, the facility failed to properly assess Resident #89's pain upon admission to ensure an effective pain management plan was in place. This affected one resident (#89) out of three residents reviewed for pain management. Facility census was 88. Findings included: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #89 revealed an admission date of 09/04/24 and a discharge date of 09/09/24. Diagnosis included but were not limited to sepsis, intraspinal abscess and granuloma, lumbar epidural abscess, post laminectomy syndrome, fusion of spine lumbar region, urinary tract infection (UTI), wedge compression fracture of third lumbar vertebra, bacteremia, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) with peripheral angiopathy, and bipolar disorder. Review of the hospital medication records revealed Resident #89 last received Oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) on 09/04/25 at 1:15 P.M. Review of the physician orders for September 2024 revealed an order for Oxycodone 5 mg one to two tablets…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
  Provide 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 record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure Resident #89 was administered medication per physician orders. This affected one resident (89) out of three residents for medication administration. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #89 revealed an admission date of 09/04/24 at 5:45 P.M. and a discharge date of 09/09/24. Diagnosis included but were not limited to sepsis, intraspinal abscess and granuloma, lumbar epidural abscess, post laminectomy syndrome, fusion of spine lumbar region, urinary tract infection (UTI), wedge compression fracture of third lumbar vertebra, bacteremia, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) with peripheral angiopathy, and bipolar disorder. Review of the physician orders for September 2024 revealed an order for Cefazolin (antibiotic) in dextrose 5% solution to administer 2 grams per 100 milliliter (gram/ml) intravenous (IV) three times a day (TID) for seven (7 days). Review of the hospital medication records revealed Resident #89 last received…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

7 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 $2.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OH