Stonespring Of Vandalia
4000 Singing Hills Bvld, Dayton, OH 45414 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 144 certified beds · (937) 415-8000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.3% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.5% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better 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 | 4.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.3% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.4% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.8% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.5% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.1% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.13 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.11 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
52.3% 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 398 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 81.9% 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 72 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 52.3%CMS range 47.4–57.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 7.4–12.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 81.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 68.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 75.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.5% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 4.5–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 144 beds and averages 137.3 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, staff and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were consumed at the time of administration. This affected one (Resident #40) of the three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 07/09/24 with medical diagnoses of local infection of skin, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), hypothyroidism, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the medical record for Resident #40 revealed an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #40 was cognitively intact and was independent with eating and bed mobility, required partial/moderate staff assistance with toilet hygiene, and supervision with transfers. Review of the medical record for Resident #40 revealed physician orders dated 07/09/24 for apixaban 5 milligram (mg) one tablet 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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure call lights were accessible to two (Residents #428 and #439) of 28 sampled residents. The facility census was 134. Findings include: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #428 revealed an admission date of 04/13/24 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, dementia, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #428 dated 08/19/23 revealed that the resident was cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs.) Review of plan of care for Resident #428 dated 04/13/24 revealed the resident was at risk for an ADL self-care performance deficit related to atrial fibrillation, COPD, chronic kidney disease, glaucoma, and DM. Interventions included the following: assist with positioning to help maintain proper body alignment, encourage rest periods, keep call light within reach while in room. Observation on 04/17/24 at 7: 40 A.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure carpet in resident rooms was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected one (Resident #421) of 28 sampled residents. The facility census was 134. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #421 revealed an admission date of 03/26/24 with diagnoses including skin cancer, atrial fibrillation, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD.) Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #421 dated 03/26/24 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and was dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs.) Observation on 04/15/24 at 11:00 A.M. of Resident #421's room revealed there were six large dark red stains on the carpet next to television and dresser stand. Interview on 04/15/24 at 11:00 A.M. with Resident #421 confirmed the stains on the carpet were made when he had fallen, and his blood had dripped all over the floor. Interview on 04/15/24 at 2:30 P.M. with State Tested…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician's orders for treatment of pressure ulcers. This affected one (Resident #429) of 17 facility-identified residents with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 137. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #429 revealed an admission date 04/12/24 with diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, type two diabetes, and hypertension. Review of physician's order for Resident #429 dated 04/12/24 revealed an order for State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) to apply Remedy barrier cream after each incontinent episode. Review of physician's orders for Resident #429 dated 04/17/24 revealed an order to cleanse the pressure ulcer to the resident's sacrum with normal saline, pat dry with sterile gauze, cover with collagen, cover with gauze or abdominal pad, then secure with tape every day and night shift. Observation on 04/17/24 at 11:10 A.M. revealed Unit Manager (UM) #240 removed an old dressing that was saturated with urine 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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure non-edible products were secured and not accessible to residents with cognitive impairments. This affected one (Resident #94) of two residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 134. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #94 revealed an admission date of 10/06/22 with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #94 dated 04/02/24 revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and required supervision for eating, moderate assistance for oral hygiene, maximal assistance for personal hygiene, and was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, dressing, bed mobility, and transfer. Review of the plan of care for Resident #94 dated 10/26/22 revealed the resident had impaired cognition and decision-making skills related 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 · D2024-04-18 · 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
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure gastrostomy tube (g-tube) feedings were administered in a safe and proper manner. The affected one (Resident #86) of seven facility-identified residents with g-tubes. The facility census was 134. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #429 revealed an admission date of 04/12/24 with diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, type two diabetes, cognitive deficit, and hypertension. Review of plan of care for Resident #429 dated 04/12/24 revealed the resident was at nutritional risk. Interventions included the following: administer tube feeding and flush per orders, maintain the head of the bed elevated 30 degrees during and thirty minutes after tube feeding, monitor and report signs and symptoms of aspiration. Review of plan of care for Resident #429 dated 04/12/24 revealed the resident required tube feeding related to dysphagia. Interventions included the following: administer tube feed and flush per orders, head of bed elevated 30 degrees…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-21 · 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 and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This affected one (#134) out of the three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 129. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #134 revealed an admission date of 03/16/22 with medical diagnoses of hypothyroidism, end stage renal disease, dependence on dialysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes mellitus. Review of the medical record for Resident #134 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/17/23 which indicated Resident #134 was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #134 required limited staff assistance with bed mobility and extensive staff assistance with transfers, toileting, dressing, and bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #134 revealed a physician order, dated 08/16/23, for ipratropium-albuterol inhalation aerosol 20-100 microgram (mcg) per actuation (act), one inhalation by mouth three times per day on Monday,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and review of a policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (#10) of one residents observed for medications. The census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 07/27/23. Diagnoses include hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominate side, anxiety, and depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 was assessed with severely impaired cognition. Review of the October 2023 medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #10 was ordered the pain medication aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) one tablet, the supplement levothyroxine 137 micrograms (mcg) one tablet, the supplement selenium 200 mcg one tablet, the supplement vitamin D3 125 mcg one tablet, the antianxiety medication alprazolam 0.25 mg one tablet, the supplement…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-25 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had the right to refuse treatment and failed to ensure the resident understood the intent of an advanced directive. This affected one (Resident #200) of three residents reviewed for advanced directives. The census was 128. Findings Include: Resident #200 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of her Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/01/23, revealed she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #200 physician orders revealed she had an advanced directive of full code status from admission until 08/01/23. On 08/01/23, it was changed to Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC) status. Review of Resident #200 progress notes, dated 08/01/23, revealed a note written by Nurse Practitioner #300 that stated, She is satting [oxygen saturation dropping] in the 50's. Put her on Cpap and told her that she needed to keep that on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-03-12 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, family, resident and staff interviews, review of night shift form and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident care equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected two Resident's (#8, and #72) of two reviewed for environment. The census was 137. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 10/19/15. Diagnoses included heart failure, vascular dementia and hypertension chronic kidney disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was assessed as being cognitively intact with the need for extensive assistance of one person assist with activity of daily living (ADLs). Interview with Resident #8 on 03/10/20 at 10:03 A.M. revealed she felt staff did not clean her wheelchair very often and she was unable to do it herself. Observations of Resident #8 in her wheelchair on (03/10/20, 03/11/20, 03/12/20) at various times revealed her wheelchair…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-12 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
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 closed medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for residents when staff sent home medications not prescribed to the discharging resident. This affected one (Resident #15) out of five residents reviewed for a safe discharge. The current census was 134. Findings include: Review of Resident #15's closed medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home on [DATE]. Diagnoses included fracture of the femur, dysphagia, hypertension, heart disease, and history of falls. Review the comprehensive admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition and was a one person assist with bathing and hygiene. Review of the discharge instructions dated 02/29/20 revealed the nurse discussed the list of prescribed medications with the resident and supplied a two-day supply of medications for the resident along with prescriptions from the physicians. Review of progress…
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 before2020-03-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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 medical record review, shower schedule review, task worksheet review, observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide care to dependent residents to maintain personal hygiene. This affected two Residents (#85 and #102) out of three reviewed for personal hygiene. The current census was 134. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #102's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, obesity, anxiety, muscle weakness, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set, (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition, and required one person assist with personal hygiene and a two person assist with bathing. Review of Resident #102's care plans dated 06/20/18 revealed a focus for self-care deficit related to impaired mobility, activity intolerance, Parkinson's and muscle weakness. Interventions included extensive assist…
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 · D2019-01-31 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two (# 93 and # 43) of 44 residents reviewed during the annual survey. The total facility census was 139. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #93's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, encephalopaty, altered mental status, pain, chronic kidney disease, gout, and partial traumatic transphalangeal amputation of left middle finger. Review of the admission assessment, dated 12/28/18, revealed the resident had left middle finger amputation, left index finger dark area tip of finger and right index finger red and non blanchable. Review of hospital transfer orders, dated 12/28/18, revealed Resident #93 had no pressure ulcers and the resident had wounds to the finger tips. Review of the plastic surgeon note dated 12/28/18, revealed the resident had a an amputation of the distal phalanx of his left, long finger…
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 before2019-01-31 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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
Based on observations, record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided appropriate grooming assistance for one one (#109) of seven residents observed during phase two of the survey. The facility census was 139. Findings include: Review of Resident #109's medical records revealed an admission date of 11/06/10. Diagnoses included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis, type two diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, and hypothyroidism. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/10/19, revealed Resident #109 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL), and was occasionally incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowels. Observation of Resident #109 on 01/28/19 at 10:09 A.M., on 01/29/19 at 9:23 A.M., and 01/29/19 at 2:43 P.M., revealed Resident #109 had one and a half inch growth of hair underneath her chin. Resident's #109 hands were…
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 CARESPRING — 16 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARESPRING HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/01/2013 |
| BARRY N BORTZ 06042009 TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 72% | since 10/01/2013 |
| BORTZ FAMILY IRREVOCABLE T/A | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/01/2014 |
| EPPERS, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 15% | since 10/01/2013 |
| DOUGLAS, JILLIAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/12/2020 |
| CHIRUMBOLO, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| CARESPRING HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/23/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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 $931K 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 366388. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-18, 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.