Widows Home Of Dayton
50 South Findlay Street, Dayton, OH 45403 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 75 certified beds · (937) 252-1661 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (38) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $48,833 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-21)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 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 1 to 2 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 | 1.1% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 57.6% | 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 | 0.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.4% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.1% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.8% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 12.9% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.71 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
39.9% 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 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.8% 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 51 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 39.9%CMS range 28.6–55.0 | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 6.0–13.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 62.8% | 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 | 60.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 66.7% | 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 | 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 | 3.0% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 3.8–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.36 | 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 75 beds and averages 63.8 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 11 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 4.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.03 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 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 3.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.30 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.24 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
38 citations, most serious first. The 14 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2022-08-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the unprecedented global pandemic that resulted in the Presidential declaration of a State of National Emergency dated 03/13/20, medical record reviews, review of COVID-19 guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), observation, review of the facility's Coronavirus (COVID-19) policies, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement effective and recommended infection control practices, including the implementation of appropriate isolation and quarantine procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the facility. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy on 07/23/22 when Resident #153, who was mobile and left her room frequently, was not placed under quarantine upon being notified Resident #153's roommate (Resident #01) tested positive for COVID-19 in the emergency room (ER) at the hospital. On 07/26/22, the facility conducted broad-based testing and results confirmed five additional residents (Residents #22, #25, #37, #46, and #153) tested positive for COVID-19.…
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.
- Actual harm · G2026-02-24 · 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 record review, review of hospital records, review of an emergency medical services (EMS) report, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide timely, adequate and necessary care, monitoring and treatment for Resident #52 following an acute change in condition. Actual Harm occurred on 01/31/26 at approximately 1:00 P.M. when Resident #52 started receiving shocks from his implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (a battery-powered device placed under the skin to monitor, detect, and treat life-threatening heart arrhythmias). Resident #52 sustained numerous shocks from his ICD throughout the day with no intervention by staff. Resident #52 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] around 1:00 A.M. and required emergency medications to be stabilized and was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for monitoring and treatment. This affected one (Resident #52) of three residents reviewed for a change in condition. The facility census was 65.Findings include: Review of the medical record 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-05-21 · 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, staff interview, review of the facility policy, and review of online guidelines per the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), the facility failed to thoroughly assess resident skin and failed to identify pressure ulcers until they had reached an advanced stage. This resulted in Actual Harm for Resident #40 who was admitted to the facility without pressure ulcers, was assessed to be at low risk for the development of pressure ulcers, and developed an unstageable pressure ulcer with slough (nonviable tissue which could impede wound healing) to the left buttock. This affected one (Resident #40) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record review for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 08/14/24 with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease, diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, and depression. Review of the care plan for Resident #40 dated 12/04/24 revealed the resident was at risk for impaired skin integrity and breakdown related to impaired…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-10-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility policy, and review of guidelines per the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP), the facility failed to thoroughly assess residents' skin and to implement interventions to prevent the development of pressure ulcers and failed to initiate prompt and timely treatment for a resident with pressure ulcers (a pressure ulcer is a localized injury of the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction). This resulted in Actual harm when Resident #14 was admitted to the facility without pressure sores but was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and subsequently developed an avoidable unstageable pressure ulcer to the right heel (full-thickness tissue loss where the depth of the wound bed was completely obscured by eschar in the wound bed) and a stage II pressure ulcer to the left heel. This affected one (Resident #14) of three residents…
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 before2026-06-17 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 record review, observations, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a sanitary and home like environment in resident rooms. This affected four Residents ( #22, #23, #26 and #27) of seven residents reviewed for sanitary homelike and environment. The facility total census was 64. Findings Include: 1. Record review of Resident #26 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #26 include joint replacement of right femur, osteoporosis, dementia, severe malnutrition, and dysphagia. Review of the Minimum Data Set, (MDS) comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. Observation on 06/14/26 at 8:10 A.M. revealed Resident #26's bed had a broken headboard. The bed headboard was not well attached, with approximately 4 inches movement away from the top pf the bed and the side of the head broad missing an edge piece, which revealed splintered and rough edges. The floor from the entrance of the room…
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 before2026-06-17 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a sanitary and home-like environment in common area. This affected 8 residents (Resident #21,#22, #23, #24, #15, #26,#27, and #28) residing on the 200 unit . The facility total census was 64. Findings Include:Observation on 06/17/26 from 8:10 A.M. through 8:22 A.M. of unit 200 hallway and room entrances of Resident #21, #22, #23, #24,#15, #26,#27, and #28 revealed a gray and blackened color with the appearance of a heavy build up blackened wax. There were three hallway flooring sections that had indentations approximately one half inches deep. One floor section was near a floor incline near the 200-nurse station and there were two sections near the middle of the hallway that contained six indented floor tiles. The indented floor tiles contained blackened debris. There were four, 8-foot sections of wooden handrails that had rough and uncleanable surface edges. The outer protective coating was removed and the uncleanable wood was exposed. Interview on 06/17/26 at 10:45 A.M. with Maintenance…
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 before2026-02-24 · tag F0729 — widespreadVerify that a nurse aide has been trained; and if they haven't worked as a nurse aide for 2 years, receive retraining.
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 personnel record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure employed Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) were properly licensed with the State of Ohio. This had the ability to affect all 65 residents. The facility census was 65.Findings include: Review of the CNA #13's personnel file revealed a hire date of [DATE] for a housekeeper position. CNA #13's file contained a certificate of completion from an online Nurse Aide Competency Evaluation Program (NATCEP) with completion date of [DATE]. Review of CNA #13's timecard for February 2026 revealed 12-hour shifts were completed on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE], and [DATE].Interview on [DATE] at 10:04 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified CNA #13 was not licensed as a CNA. The DON stated CNA #13 finished her online CNA program in [DATE] but never took the state test for licensure. The DON stated CNA #13 was initially hired as a housekeeper and worked her way up to being…
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 before2026-02-24 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 review of the medical record, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician or non-physician provider when a resident had an acute change in condition. This affected one (Resident #52) of three residents reviewed for a change in condition. The facility census was 65.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 09/25/25. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #52 had intact cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. Review of nurse's progress notes dated 01/31/26 from 11:00 A.M. to 10:55 P.M., revealed no documented evidence the physician or the non-physician provider was contacted when Resident #52 experienced an acute change in condition at approximately 1:00 P.M.Review of the nurse's 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 · D2026-02-24 · 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 review of the medical record, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' medical records were complete and accurately documented. This affected one (Resident #52) of three residents reviewed for documentation. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 09/25/25. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #52 had intact cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. Review of nurse's progress notes for Resident #52 dated 01/31/26 from 11:00 A.M. to 10:55 P.M., revealed no documentation regarding the resident's acute change in condition reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #22 on 01/31/26 around 1:00 P.M. The first note in the medical record about Resident #52's acute…
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 before2025-05-21 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of staffing schedules, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse (RN) scheduled for at least eight consecutive hours daily. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: Review of staffing schedules dated 04/13/25 through 05/17/25 revealed on 04/27/25 there was no RN working in the facility. Interview on 05/21/25 at 11:10 A.M. with Clinical Director (CD) #312 confirmed the facility did not have an RN working for eight consecutive hours on 04/27/25. Review of the facility policy titled Nursing Services-Registered Nurse dated 05/01/25 revealed the facility would utilize the services of an RN for at least eight consecutive hours per day, seven days per week.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and served in a manner to protect against foodborne illness. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility identified one (Resident #37) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/18/25 at 8:36 A.M. of the breakfast tray line revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #362 was assisting with food preparation by covering plates, adding drinks to trays, and placing trays on a cart. CNA #362 was not wearing a hair net. Interview on 05/18/25 at 8:50 A.M. with CNA #362 confirmed she was assisting with tray line and was not wearing a hair net. CNA #362 stated she was trying to stay away from the steam table so she wouldn't have to wear a hairnet. 2. Observation on 05/18/25 at 8:40 A.M. revealed there were several black specks, measuring approximately one-quarter of inch on the floor between the deep fryer and stove and on the rack below…
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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure garbage cans in the kitchen were covered. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: Observation on 05/18/25 at 8:40 A.M. revealed there were two garbage cans in the food preparation area which had no covers Interview on 05/18/25 at 8:52 A.M. with Dietary Staff (DS) # 392 confirmed the garbage cans were not covered. Observation on 05/19/25 at 10:05 A.M. revealed the two garbage cans in the food preparation remained uncovered. Review of the facility policy titled Disposal of Garbage and Refuse dated 05/21/25 revealed garbage and refuse containers should be covered when not in use.
- Potential for harm · F2025-05-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, review of pest control documentation, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain effective pest control in the kitchen area. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/18/25 at 8:40 A.M. revealed there were several black specs, measuring approximately one quarter inch on the floor between the deep fryer and stove and on the rack below the steamer. Interview on 05/18/25 at 8:57 A.M. with Dietary Staff (DS) #392 confirmed the black specs on the floor between the deep fryer and stove and on the rack below the steamer were mouse droppings. 2. Observation on 05/18/25 at 9:08 A.M. on the floor by the dry storage area revealed there were three cockroaches measuring approximately two inches in length. Interview on 05/18/25 at 9:10 A.M. with DS #392 confirmed there were three dark brown insects on the floor by the dry storage area. Review of pest control documentation revealed the kitchen had been treated for routine monthly services…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a clean and homelike dining experience. This had the potential to affect the 11 facility-identified residents (#02, #03, #07, #18, #19, #24, #39, #48, #50, #59, #61) who ate their meals in the main dining room. The facility also failed to ensure resident rooms were clean and sanitary. This affected three (Residents #53, #62, #123) of 19 residents sampled. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/18/25 at 8:36 A.M. of breakfast revealed residents were served the meal in Styrofoam containers. Interview on 05/18/25 with Dietary Staff (DS) #392 confirmed residents were being served their meal in Styrofoam containers because another dietary staff member had called off and they were trying to minimize the amount of dishes that needed to be washed. 2. Observation on 05/19/25 at 12:24 P.M. revealed there was a large vent in the ceiling in the middle of the dining room which was caked in a thick dark gray and fuzzy material which was visibly blowing in…
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 24 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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
Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were completed as required. This affected four (Residents #10, #23, #40, and #56) of five residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility failed to ensure care plans were updated following a change in condition. This affected two (Residents #10 and #48) of 19 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 68. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record of Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 09/04/21 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF), type two diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depression, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #10 dated 04/07/25 revealed the resident had intact cognition and required staff assistance with activities of daily living. Review of a progress note for Resident #10 dated 10/10/24 revealed the resident and her family were invited to a care conference that was scheduled 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 · Ecited before2025-05-21 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, and sanitary environment in the common areas of the facility. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: 1.Observation on 05/18/25 at 4:55 P.M. revealed the cove base in the entrance to the rehab hallway was ripped and torn. There were also multiple missing floor tiles. Interivew on 05/18/25 at 4:55 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #377 confirmed the cove base to the walls near the entrance to the rehab unit was ripped and torn and there were multiple missing floor tiles. CNA #377 confirmed the floor was in disrepair and presented a trip hazard to residents, staff, and visitors. 2. Observation on 05/21/25 at 3:23 P.M. with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) #307 revealed the ceiling light to the entrance of the rehab unit was not working and the cover to the light fixture was broken. Interview on 05/21/25 at 3:23 P.M. with MS #307 confirmed the ceiling light to the entrance of the rehab unit was in a…
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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
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, review of resident fund records, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to transfer funds upon death to a resident's estate within thirty days. This affected one (Resident #127) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #127 revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including anemia, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, dementia, and depression. Resident #127 expired in the facility on [DATE]. Review of the resident fund account records revealed the facility sent a dated [DATE] to the estate of Resident #127 with a check containing the balance of $245.51 from the resident's fund account with the facility. Interview on [DATE] at 11:04 A.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #310 confirmed Resident # 127 expired on [DATE] in the facility and the facility did not refund balance of $242.51 from the resident's fund account to the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-21 · 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 medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to properly store medications in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (Resident #62) of 19 residents sampled. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #62 revealed an admission date of 04/13/25 with diagnoses including polyneuropathy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #62 dated 05/08/25, revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs.) Review of the physician's orders for Resident #62 dated May 2025 revealed no orders for cranberry supplement, probiotic tablets, Refresh Tears eye drops, Replenish eye drops, Ketorolac eye drops, multivitamin capsules, and Tums tablets. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #62 dated May 2025 revealed there was no documentation of administration of the following…
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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide 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 medical record review, resident interview, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident meal preferences were honored. This affected one (Resident #23) of 19 residents sampled. The facility census was 68 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 01/25/25 with diagnoses including fracture of the left humerus, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and glaucoma. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment for Resident #23 dated 05/02/25 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the lunch order for Resident #23 dated 05/19/25 revealed the resident ordered a hot dog, mashed potatoes and fruit. Interview on 05/18/25 at 10:08 A.M. with Resident #23 confirmed she often did not receive what was written on the menu and would receive a peanut butter and jelly sandwich instead. Observation service on 05/19/25 at 12:59 P.M. of the lunch service revealed Resident #23 received mashed potatoes, fruit, and a peanut butter sandwich. Interview on 05/19/25…
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 · D2024-12-09 · 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 a medication was available for administration as ordered. This affected one (#51) resident out of the three residents reviewed for medications available from pharmacy for administration. The facility census was 62. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 08/14/24 with medical diagnoses of acquired absence of left below knee amputation (BKA), peripheral vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/21/24, which indicated Resident #51 was cognitively intact and required substantial/maximum staff assistance with toilet hygiene and transfers and partial/moderate staff assistance with bathing and bed mobility. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 a physician order dated 09/12/24 for Percocet 5-325 milligram (mg) give one tablet by mouth every four hours for pain. Review of the medical record 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 · D2024-12-09 · 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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from significant medication error. This affected one (#32) resident out of the three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 62. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 02/24/23 with medical diagnoses of myocardial infarction, cerebral infarctions, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, spinal stenosis and congestive heart failure. Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/24/24, which indicated Resident #32 was cognitively intact and required supervision with toilet hygiene, showers, bed mobility, and transfers. Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed a physician order dated 05/12/24 for Insulin Glargine 100 units per milliliter (ml), administer eight units subcutaneous (SQ) daily, an order dated 06/-2/24 for Insulin Lispro 100 units per ml, administer five units SQ before meals daily, and an order…
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 before2024-10-17 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff communicated with resident physicians regarding significant changes in status. This affected one (Resident #14) of three residents reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 64 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 8/21/24 with diagnoses including periprosthetic fracture around internal prosthetic right hip joint, history of falling, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and peripheral vascular disease. Resident #14 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #14 dated 08/21/24 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility. Review of the admission assessment for Resident #14 dated 08/21/24 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility following…
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 · D2024-05-02 · 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 record review, observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's enteral tube feeding orders were implemented as ordered. This affected one (#82) of three residents reviewed for enteral tube feeding. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #82 revealed admission date of 04/05/24. Diagnoses include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lupus, gastrostomy tube, and west nile virus. Resident #82 remains in the facility. Review of the physician orders dated 04/26/24 for Resident #82 revealed an order for Jevity (enteral nutrition) 1.5 calories at 70 milliliters (ml) an hour for 22 hours (12:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M.). Review of the physician orders dated 04/26/24 for Resident #82 revealed an order for a 50 ml free water flush for 22 hours (12:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M.). Interview on 05/01/24 at 10:00 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #109 stated the enteral nutrition order for Resident #82 was for the tube feeding to run continuously at 70 milliliters (ml) with a 250 milliliter flush every…
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 · D2024-05-02 · 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
Based on medical record review, observations and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as physician ordered, resulting in three medication errors out of 31 opportunities or a 9.67 percent (%) medication error rate. This affected one (#80) of three residents observed for medication administration pass. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #80 revealed admission date of 02/27/24. Diagnoses include end stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and stroke. Resident #80 remains in the facility. Review of Resident #80's physician orders revealed an order for ProRenal + D Oral Tablet (supplement)-give one tablet by mouth one time a day every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for chronic kidney disease with a start date of 02/28/24; Acidophilus Capsule-give one capsule by mouth in the morning for gut health before breakfast with a start date of 02/28/2024 and Olopatadine Ophthalmic Solution 0.1 % (eye drops)-instill one drop in both eyes two times a day for allergies with a start date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-01-29 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — widespreadEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of staffing agency information, review of facility census, staff interview, staffing agency personnel interview, and review of the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry, review the Office of Health Assurance and Licensing (OHAL) website, the facility failed to ensure an aide had completed an approved nurse aide training and competency evaluation program (NATCEP) before working the facility. This affected one (Agency Aide #150) of three personnel files reviewed and had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 66. Findings Include: Review of staffing information provided by the facility and a staffing agency revealed Agency Aide #150 worked in the facility from 09/13/23 through 12/22/23. Review of the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry revealed Agency Aide #150 was not registered as an state tested nursing assistant (STNA). Review of a NATCEP certificate provide by a staffing agency revealed Agency Aide #150 had completed a NATCEP program on 07/31/23. Review the OHAL website revealed the NATCEP program listed on Agency Aide…
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 before2024-01-29 · tag F0729 — patternVerify that a nurse aide has been trained; and if they haven't worked as a nurse aide for 2 years, receive retraining.
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 review of personnel record, staffing schedule information, review of facility census, staff interview, and review of the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry, the facility failed to ensure a state tested nursing assistant's (STNA) registration was not expired. This affected one (STNA #130) of three personnel files reviewed and had the potential to affect 17 (#39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, and #55) residents that STNA #130 regularly cared for. The facility census was 66. Findings Include: Review of STNA #130's personnel file revealed a hire date of [DATE]. Review of the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry revealed STNA #130 was not eligible to work in a long-term care facility due to not having work verification in the past 24 months. STNA #10's nurse aide registration expired on [DATE]. Review of staffing schedule information revealed STNA #130 worked in Rehab Unit on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] from 7:00 A. M to 7:00 P.M. During an interview on [DATE]…
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 before2023-11-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medial record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to complete pressure ulcer treatments as ordered. This affected three (#1, #4, and #5) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The census was 69. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/09/22. Diagnoses listed included type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired and had a stage four pressure ulcer. Review of wound physician documentation dated 10/30/23 and 11/20/23 revealed Resident #1 had a stage four pressure ulcer to the sacrum. Review of physician orders dated 11/21/23 revealed an order dated 11/21/23 for cleanse sacrum with normal saline (NS) or wound cleanser. Pat dry and pack wound lightly with calcium alginate with silver…
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 · D2023-11-29 · 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 Based on medial record review and staff interview, the facility failed complete urinary catheter care as ordered. This affected three (#1, #4, and #5) of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The census was 69. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/09/22. Diagnoses listed included type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired and had a stage four pressure ulcer. Review of physician orders revealed an order dated 07/19/23 was for Foley (urinary catheter) two times as day and as needed (PRN) for preventative. Review of treatment administration records (TAR's) revealed Foley care was not documented as being completed on two times a day 11/07/23, 11/11/23, 11/15/23, 11/16/23, 11/18/23, and 11/21/23. 2. Review of Resident #4's medical…
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 before2023-11-07 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of time punches, daily staffing sheets, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure there were Registered Nurses (RN) working seven days week for at least eight hours a day. The affected all the residents who resided at the facility. The census was 62. Findings included: Review of the time punches and daily staffing sheets revealed the facility did not have a RN working on 11/04/23 or 11/05/23. During an interview on 11/07/23 at 1:00 P.M., the Administrator confirmed there wasn't a RN working on these dates and he was aware a RN should be working seven days a week at least eight hours. He stated there was a RN scheduled but she didn't show up for work on these days. A policy for staffing was requested but it wasn't received during the survey. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00146842.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-08-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, observations, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food and pans were stored in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all but one resident who was identified to not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Observations on 07/25/22 at 9:26 A.M. during the initial tour of the kitchen with Dietary Manager #758 revealed there were two bags of dry pasta, undated and opened on the shelf in the storage room. There was a bag of moldy hot dog buns on the bread cart. The observations were confirmed immediately with Dietary Manager #758 who revealed dry goods were to be wrapped entirely with plastic wrap, dated, and the bread company delivered and rotated bread twice per week. Observation of the walk-in freezer revealed the food items were undated and/or unsealed: the frozen hot dogs were undated and unsealed, pork breakfast sausage was undated, egg omelets were undated and unsealed, churros were undated, blended pepper strips, were undated and unsealed mixed vegetables were undated, 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 · D2022-08-17 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff and resident interview, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents' call lights were within reach. This affected three residents (#17, #35, and #199) of three residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 55. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an initial admission date of 01/11/19 and a re-entry date of 03/04/20. Diagnoses included Parkinson's Disease, morbid (severe) obesity, repeated falls, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had impaired cognition with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment). The resident required extensive assistance of one to two or more staff for bed mobility, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and was dependent on staff for transfers. Review of the plan of care dated 01/26/20…
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 · D2022-08-17 · 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 staff interview, resident interview, medical record review, review of facility self-reported incidents, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the State Survey Agency. This affected one (Resident #34) out of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an initial admission date of 10/21/16 and a re-entry date of 10/29/21. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and altered mental status. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 had moderate cognitive impairment. Her behaviors included hallucinations, verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others, and rejection of care. She required extensive assistance of one to two or more staff for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene, and required total assistance for toileting. Review of the plan of care, dated 11/14/21 and revised on 02/17/22,…
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 · D2022-08-17 · 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 staff interview, resident interview, medical record review, review of facility self-reported incidents, and facility policy review, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse. This affected one (Resident #34) out of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an initial admission date of 10/21/16 and a re-entry date of 10/29/21. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and altered mental status. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 had moderate cognitive impairment. Her behaviors included hallucinations, verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others, and rejection of care. She required extensive assistance of one to two or more staff for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene, and required total assistance for toileting. Review of the plan of care, dated 11/14/21 and revised on 02/17/22, revealed Resident #34 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 · Dcited before2022-08-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, observations, medical record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to complete weekly skin assessment and implement preventative pressure ulcer interventions as physician ordered. This affected one (Resident #42) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified three residents with pressure ulcers and 56 residents with preventative skin. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 06/11/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease, cognitive communication deficit, dementia with behavioral disturbances, contracture of the right and left shoulder, left wrist, and right and left hand. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/05/22, revealed Resident #42 was rarely or never understood. Her short- and long-term memory was not assessed, and her cognitive skills were severely impaired. Resident #42 was dependent on staff for all activities…
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 · D2022-08-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, family and resident interview, observations, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide nutritional supplements as physician ordered for a resident receiving dialysis treatment. This affected one (Resident #47) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility identified one resident receiving dialysis services and 20 residents who receive nutritional supplements The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 03/11/21. Diagnoses included hypertensive heart and kidney disease with heart failure and with stage V, chronic kidney disease (CKD), end stage renal disease (ESRD), anemia in CKD, diabetes mellitus (DM), congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension (HTN), and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/03/22, revealed Resident #47 had moderately impaired cognition with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS)…
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 · D2022-08-17 · 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
Based on staff interview, resident interview, observations, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow a resident's physician orders for oxygen use. This affected one (Resident #47) of one resident reviewed for respiratory services. The facility identified 10 residents receiving respiratory services. The facility census was 55. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 03/11/21. Diagnoses included hypertensive heart and kidney disease with heart failure and with stage V, chronic kidney disease (CKD), end stage renal disease (ESRD), and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/03/22, revealed Resident #47 had moderately impaired cognition with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15. Resident #47 required supervision to extensive assistance of one to two staff members for all activities of daily living (ADLs) except eating which he required set up and supervision. Review of the physician's orders dated 08/28/21…
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 · D2019-06-27 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and or the resident's representative, in writing, of the transfer or discharge and the reason for the move in writing. This affected two (#25 and #62) out of two residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 64. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bipolar disorder, diabetes type II, depression, hypertension, muscle weakness, and hearing loss. It also revealed Resident #25 was cognitively intact. Review of the progress note dated 02/27/19 revealed Resident #25 continued to have shortness of breath and increased confusion. Chest x-ray revealed sub segmental atelectasis versus mild infiltrate. The physician was notified, and a decision was made to transfer Resident #25 to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. It also revealed the Resident was admitted 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 · D2019-06-27 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 send Resident #25 and Resident #62, and or their representative, a bed hold notice explaining the duration of days of the bed hold policy. This affected two (#25 and #62) out of two residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 64. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bipolar disorder, diabetes type II, depression, hypertension, muscle weakness, and hearing loss. It also revealed Resident #25 was cognitively intact. Review of the progress note dated 02/27/19 revealed Resident #25 continued to have shortness of breath and increased confusion. Chest x-ray revealed sub segmental atelectasis versus mild infiltrate. The physician was notified, and a decision was made to transfer Resident #25 to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. It also revealed the Resident was admitted 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.
“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
$48,833 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $39,868 — penalty dated 2025-05-21
- $8,965 — penalty dated 2024-10-17
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FINDLAY HOLDCO | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/21/2023 |
| FINDLAY OPCO | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 93% | since 03/21/2023 |
| WEINSCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 7% | since 03/21/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $515K 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 366178. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-21, 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.