Meadows Of Delphos The
800 Ambose Drive, Delphos, OH 45833 · For profit - Corporation · 54 certified beds · (419) 643-3161 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.7% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.4% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.8% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.6% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.7% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.7% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.1% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.5% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.87 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.53 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
60.4% 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 97 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 37.2% 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 43 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 60.4%CMS range 48.5–69.2 | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 5.4–11.7 | 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 | 37.2% | 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 | 37.2% | 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 | 20.9% | 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 | 76.3% | 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 | 92.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 1.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.5–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 54 beds and averages 45.4 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.89 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.76 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-20 · 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, record review, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), and policy review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency. This affected one (#53) of the three residents reviewed. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record of Resident #53 revealed an admission date of [DATE] and expired in the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included rhabdomyolysis, chronic kidney disease, traumatic ischemia of muscle and hard of hearing. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI) in the Certification and Licensure System (CALS), revealed no SRI being created on or around [DATE] related to allegations of abuse by staff members towards Resident #53. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:35 A.M., the Administrator stated she received a video from the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care plans were accurate and current. This affected two residents, (#10 and #20) out of five residents reviewed for care plans. The current census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included fracture of right humerus, unspecified intellectual disabilities, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and pain. Review of Resident #10's Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of the psychiatric diagnostic evaluation dated 02/17/23 revealed the Psychiatric Licensed Social Worker (PLSW) documented Resident #10 had a history of past trauma involving the murder of her brother, abuse by her parent, and abuse by her partner. Per the evaluation ongoing counseling and evaluation from a psychiatrist for medication management was recommended. Review 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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control measures wre followed for nephrostomy collection bag. This affected one Resident #144 of two reviewed for urinary catheter care. The facility census was 53. Findings included: Review of medical record for Resident #144 revealed an admission date of 01/10/25. Diagnoses included hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction with a nephrostomy. Observation on 01/16/25 at 6:57 A.M revealed the resident was lying on his left side with the nephrostomy drainage bags hanging off the left side of the bed touching the ground. Interview with Certified Registered Care Associate (CRCA) # 329 on 01/16/25 at 7:15 A.M. verified the drainage bags were over the left side of the bed and touching the floor. Review of the policy titled Urinary Catheter Care, dated 12/16/24, revealed the urinary drainage bag should be held or positioned lower than the bladder to prevent the urine in the tubing and drainage bag from flowing back into the urinary bladder. Be sure the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-08-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident smoking supplies were stored in a locked area. This affected one (Resident #7) out of one resident reviewed for smoking and had the potential to affect three additional residents (#4, #9, and #28) who were identified by the facility as being cognitively impaired and independently mobile. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #29 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and type two diabetes mellitus without complications. Review of Resident #29's Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 07/01/22, revealed Resident #29 was cognitively intact. Interview on 08/22/22 at 2:07 P.M. with Resident #29 revealed Resident #29 stored cigarettes and a lighter in his dresser drawer. Observation on 08/24/22 at 8:35 A.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-08-25 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended at bedside. This affected one (Resident #34) out of one resident reviewed for self-administration of medication and had the potential to affect three additional residents (#4, #9, and #28) who were identified by the facility as being cognitively impaired and independently mobile. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included polyneuropathy, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, hypocalcemia, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, acute on chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, and major depressive disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/06/22, revealed Resident #34 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #34's physician order, dated 07/28/22, revealed an order for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-08-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address resident medical diagnoses. This affected three (Resident #18, #23, and #103) out of 11 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 05/20/22. Diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), atherosclerotic heart disease (ASHD), hypertension, and headache syndrome. Review of Resident #18's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/17/22, revealed diagnoses of CHF, ASHD, hypertension, and headache syndrome. Review of Resident #18's most recent care plan, last updated 08/22/22, revealed there were no interventions for CHF, ASHD, hypertension, or headache syndrome in the care plan. Interview on 08/24/22 at 1:18 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #139 and RN MDS Support #185 verified Resident #18's diagnoses of CHF, ASHD, hypertension, and headache syndrome were not addressed in the care plan. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #23…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff trimmed the fingernails of residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living. This affected one (Resident #22) out of 47 residents reviewed for personal hygiene. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission date of 06/08/22. Diagnoses included left femur fracture, paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified psychosis, and anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 06/13/22, revealed Resident #22 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of two staff for personal hygiene. Observations on 08/22/22, 08/23/22, and 08/24/22 revealed Resident #22's fingernails were past the fingertips. Resident #22's nails were clean. Interview on 08/23/22 at 11:00 A.M. with Resident #22 revealed he preferred his nails to be shorter and no one had trimmed them for quite a while. Interview on 08/24/22 at 11:00 A.M. with Director of Health Services and Registered Nurse Clinical Campus Support…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents blood sugar levels were checked as ordered. This affected two (Resident #7 and #29) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #29's medical record revealed Resident #29 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to type two diabetes mellitus without complications, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and chronic combined systemic and diastolic heart failure. Review of Resident #29's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/01/22, revealed the resident was cognitively intact and received insulin. Review of Resident #29's physician order, dated 08/10/22, revealed an order for Novolog (insulin) three milliliter (ML) 100 units/ML per sliding scale based on blood sugar results four times a day. Review of Resident #29's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated August 2022,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-25 · tag 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 medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain and store a rigid suction catheter in clean and sanitary manner. This affected one (Resident #20) out of one resident reviewed for respiratory suctioning. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 03/29/22. Diagnoses included sepsis due to methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus and pseudomonas, acute respiratory failure, and acquired absence of larynx. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 06/10/22, revealed Resident #20 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of one staff for personal hygiene. The assessment further indicated respiratory suctioning was performed. Observation on 08/22/22 at 10:30 A.M. revealed a rigid suction catheter, attached to a suction hose, was draped over the suction machine in Resident #20's room. The tip of the catheter was exposed to the air and was noted to be crusted with a dark brown substance. Interview with Resident #20 at the time 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 · D2022-08-25 · 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
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure wound measurements were accurately documented on a wound assessment. This affected one (Resident #22) out of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission date of 06/08/22. Diagnoses included left femur fracture, unspecified psychosis, paranoid schizophrenia, and anxiety. Review of the Wound Management Detail Report, dated 08/24/22, by Director of Health Services (DHS), revealed Resident #22's wound measured five cm in length, 3.2 cm in width, and 0.2 cm in depth. The wound was documented as unstageable with slough and/or eschar. The tissue type was slough with 25% of wound covered with granulation tissue and 75% of the wound covered with slough tissue. Observation on 08/24/22 at 2:00 P.M. of Resident #22's wound dressing change, performed by DHS, revealed the wound had 75% slough in the wound bed. DHS measured the wound and stated it was five cm in length and 3.2 cm in width.…
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 · F2019-08-29 · 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 facility policy review the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a clean manner, failed to store foods as per guidelines and failed to ensure proper sanitation of utensils, pots and pans while using the sink. This had the potential to effect all 44 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 08/26/19 at 8:30 A.M., during the tour of the kitchen, revealed two dust pans heavily coated with old food and paper products. The outer surfaces of the lids of the dried food storage bins were soiled with dust and loose food. The surface of the shelf, used to store spices, had a thick coat of grease and dust. The floors, in areas under tables and counters, were soiled with a dried brown substance. Loose plastic items were under the refrigerator. The convection oven was heavily splattered on the inside of the door and the oven floor. The walk-in freezer contained a three tier rolling cart that held nine small dishes of ice cream, uncovered and undated. The sanitizer sink had already been used by the kitchen staff, earlier 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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-29 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation staff interview, and review of manufacturer guidelines, the facility failed to ensure a resident's insulin was administered according to manufacturer guidelines, resulting in a significant medication error. This affected one Resident (#5) of two residents observed for insulin administration. The facility identified three residents receiving insulin. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/26/18. Medical diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, hypertension, malignant neoplasm of colon, and anxiety disorder. Review of the resident's physician's orders revealed an order dated 08/23/19 for Lantus insulin (long acting insulin) pen 33 units subcutaneous once daily. Observation of medication administration on 08/28/19 at 8:06 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #200 revealed she prepared Resident #5's Lantus pen by turning the dial to 33 units. She then administered Lantus 33 units subcutaneous without priming the Lantus…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to implement appropriate hand hygiene during a dressing change. This effected one Resident (#5) of two observed for dressing changes. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 07/27/12. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of unspecified cerebral artery, chronic kidney disease, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, hypertension, anemia, deficiency of other specified B group vitamins, unspecified mononeuropathy of left lower limb, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 had severe cognitive deficit and did not have a pressure ulcer at the time of the assessment. Review of the care plan last revised 08/06/19 revealed Resident #15 has a pressure ulcer and treatment was to be administered as per physician order. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES — 123 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 122; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRIFFIN-AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT III, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| GRIFFIN-AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT IV HOLDINGS, LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| TRILOGY HOLDINGS NT-HCI, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| CORBIN, KATHY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/21/2011 |
| FIGHTMASTER, LISA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| BARBER, ROBIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/03/2018 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2001 |
| BRYANT, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/06/2016 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/21/2017 |
| PROSKY, DANNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| STREIFF, MATHIEU | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| WILLIAMSON, BRADLEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/21/2014 |
| TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| SCHOENLEIN, STEPHANIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/17/2019 |
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365405. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-16, 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.