No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Valley Oaks Care Center

500 Selfridge Street, East Liverpool, OH 43920 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 67 certified beds · (330) 385-5001 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (330) 385-5001 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 14 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (88%) runs well above the national median (45%)
  • about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1100 Pennsylvania Ave · (330) 385-7394 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Pharmacy0.8 mi
619 Bradshaw Avenue
Grocery
1216 Avondale St · (330) 385-2738 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
110 Maine Blvd · (304) 459-9875

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

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 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased6.6%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight10.4%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.2%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms11.6%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.9%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened6.1%6.1%16.1%typical for the state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication27.9%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.0%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control18.9%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.0%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.4%1.2%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.6%75.6%79.4%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.

48.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

48.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.12U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.05hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF48.2%CMS range 34.0–62.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.4%CMS range 8.4–17.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified79.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.051.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.49
RN hours/ resident / day
1.03
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.68
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.21
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.43
RN hoursweekends
88.1%
Total nursing turnover
80.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 67 beds and averages 44.1 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.68 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.22 on weekdays — 2% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 88% is well above 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-23)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-01-18)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · F2026-03-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper sanitation and food storage practices. This had the potential to effect all 38 residents (#01, #02, #03, #04, #05, #06, #07, #08, #09, #10, #11, #13, #15, #17, #18, #19, #20, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #32, #34, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #42, #43, #45, #46, #47, #55, #56) who ate food from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 43.Findings include:Observation on 03/16/26 at 10:30 A.M., the walk in freezer contained undated breadsticks stored in an unmarked clear bag. The dry storage area contained multiple food items open to air, not sealed, and not dated, including: a two pound three ounce bag of Corn Flakes, a two pound three ounce bag of Bran Flakes (closed but undated), a 16-ounce bag of Lays Classic chips, a 25 pound bag of all purpose flour, and three unlabeled, undated bags containing a brown colored substance. Dietary Manager #524 reported, I am not sure what that could be.Observation on 03/17/26 at 10:00 A.M. with Dietary Manager #524 revealed a grease residue line…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2026-03-23 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comfortable, homelike environment when maintenance failed to maintain water temperatures in resident rooms. This affected six (Residents #24, #37, #26, #14, #46, and #42) residents reviewed for homelike environment and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 43.Findings include:On 03/16/26 at 8:42 A.M., an interview with Resident #24 revealed the water in her sink did not get warm unless it ran for a really long time. Observation at the time of the interview revealed the water in the sink was cold, even after running for over two minutes. The resident stated, I shower in the shower room, so it really only is a problem to wash my face. She indicated the certified nurse aides (CNAs) mainly used the water to clean up her roommate (Resident #37), so she just dealt with it.On 03/16/26 at 8:44 A.M., an observation of water temperature in Resident #26's room revealed the water was cold at the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-23 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurately completed for Residents #7 and #12. This affected two residents (#7 and #12) of 16 residents reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments. The facility census was 43.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 04/15/25 with diagnoses including depression, dementia and anxiety. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #7 revealed she had an order for Risperdal 0.25 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for paranoia and agitation dated 07/16/25. Risperdal was classified as an antipsychotic medication. Review of the 02/19/26 modified annual MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #7 revealed on section N415 under high-risk drugs classes she was taking an antipsychotic. However, under section N450 antipsychotic medication review, the facility answered that antipsychotics were not received since admission or the prior assessment. Interview on 03/23/26 at 9:43 A.M. with…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, record review, review of facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was provided to Resident #3 as ordered by the physician and/or failed to ensure orders were updated to reflect the current plan for treatment. This affected one resident (#3) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 45. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 11/18/25 with diagnoses including chronic atrial fibrillation, depression, diffuse traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, dysphagia, heart failure and muscle weakness.Review of physician orders for Resident #3 revealed an order dated 11/18/25 to obtain the resident's vital signs monthly. Review of a care plan for Resident #3, (revised 12/01/25), revealed a focus of care for impaired respiratory status related to the resident being oxygen dependent. The goal was for the resident to be free from signs and symptoms of hypoxia. Interventions (dated 11/19/25) included oxygen as ordered or as needed…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility maintain a medical record in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, resulting in inaccurate documentation for Resident #3. This affected one resident (#3) of 16 residents whose records were reviewed for accuracy. The facility census was 43.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 11/18/25. Diagnoses included alcohol abuse, anemia, dementia, mild without behavioral disturbance, difficulty in walking, disorder of prostate, essential hypertension, history of falling, insomnia, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, pressure ulcer of right buttock Stage IV pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle) of the sacral region, alcoholic polyneuropathy, chronic atrial fibrillation, depression, diffuse traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, dysphagia, heart failure, unspecified, hyperlipidemia, muscle weakness, osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region,…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-03-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented proper infection control practices while providing care to residents on enhanced barrier precautions. This affected two of three residents (#13 and #45) reviewed for infections and had the potential to affect 25 additional residents (#29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #31, #42, #43, #44, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #52, #52, #53 and #54) who resided on the 200 hall where State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #340 contaminated high touch surfaces. The facility census was 54. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 02/20/24 with diagnoses including pneumonia, type two diabetes mellitus, dependence on renal dialysis, dislocation of the tarsometatarsal joint of the right foot, and osteomyelitis (infection of the bone) of the right ankle and foot. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 02/24/24 revealed…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-01-18 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespread
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, food committee meeting minutes and facility menu review, the facility failed to provide a menu which offered a variety of items served at the breakfast meal. This had the potential to affect 52 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #13 as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of facility food committee meeting minutes dated 07/31/23 revealed concern related to repeating menu items was noted. Review of the facility's fall 2023-24 four-week (28 day) menu revealed scrambled eggs were served 14 out of 28 days. For week three, scrambled eggs were served five days (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday) out of seven days and three days in a row between the end of week four and the beginning of week one (week four Saturday, week one Sunday, and week one Monday). Interview on 01/17/24 at 11:56 A.M. with the Dietary Supervisor revealed she did have residents complain to her there was too much repetition of some items on the menu. Interview on 01/17/24 at 1:14 P.M. with 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to accurately reflect residents' status on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments related to mental health status and oxygen use. This affected three (Residents #11, #21, and #33) of 24 residents whose assessments were reviewed. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #11's medical record review revealed diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type), psychosis, pseudobulbar affect, depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder. A Preadmission Screen and Resident Review dated 07/05/22 indicated Resident #11 had no indications of serious mental illness. Resident #11 was hospitalized between 11/14/22 and 12/07/22. Review of a Preadmission Screen and Resident Review Determination (PASRR) determination revealed Resident #11 was approved for nursing facility services. The attached summary report dated 12/01/22 indicated Resident #11 was first medically hospitalized ( for increased ammonia level 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0646 — isolated
    Notify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
    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 ensure preadmission screening and record review assessments were resubmitted after a new major mental illness diagnosis was added for Resident #43. This affected one (Resident #43) of four residents reviewed for preadmission screening and resident review. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/12/23 with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, major depression and anxiety. A Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) completed on 04/11/23 indicated Resident #43 had only anxiety. Upon admission to the facility, Resident #43 was prescribed Navane (antipsychotic medication) five milligrams (mg) twice daily which the resident was on long term prior to admission. Further review of the medical record, including psychiatrist evaluations, revealed the Navane was gradually reduced and discontinued on 06/06/23. 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed weekly for Residents #33 and #51. This affected two residents (#33 and #51) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 09/24/21. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with (acute) exacerbation and chronic respiratory failure. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #33's physician orders revealed an order dated 11/18/22 for oxygen two liters via nasal cannula, may titrate as needed. Review of Resident #33's care plan dated 09/25/21 revealed the resident had an impaired respiratory status related to anxiety, being a current smoker, and having shortness of breath. Interventions included oxygen as ordered by the physician. Observation and interview on…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-02-03 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to monitor circulatory status of a resident who had an edematous (swollen) left foot and studies indicating a thrombus (blood clot). This affected one (Resident #97) of 17 residents observed for evidence of edema. Findings include: Observations on 02/01/22 at 8:38 A.M. and 11:06 A.M. and on 02/02/22 at 7:50 A.M. and 12:20 P.M. revealed Resident #97 sitting on the side of his bed with his legs dangling off the side of the bed and his feet on the floor. Review of Resident #97's medical record revealed a diagnosis of a fracture of the left femur. On 12/30/21 an order was written for a venous ultrasound of the left lower extremity due to increased edema. Venous doppler results dated 12/31/21 indicated there appeared to be a thrombus (a blood clot formed in situ within the vascular system of the body and impeding blood flow) in the left gastrocnemius vein (The gastrocnemius vein is considered a deep muscular vein of the calf.) There was no evidence of circulatory assessments related to the thrombus. On…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-02-03 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure range of motion services were provided for residents identified with a limitation in joint mobility. This affected one (Resident #26) of two residents reviewed for range of motion services. The facility census was 46. Findings include: Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/18/15 and a readmission date of 09/18/19 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with dementia and congestive heart failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment with a reference date of 12/31/21 indicated Resident #26 had limitation in range of motion to both upper and lower extremities. Further review of the medical record including a hospice recertification completed on 12/31/21 indicated Resident #26 had contractures to the bilateral legs and hands. Further review of the medical record found no evidence of any splint device use or any restorative services for joint mobility. No documentation was found to indicate a reason for joint mobility services not…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-02-03 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure monthly pharmacy reviews identified physician orders were not being followed regarding acetaminophen administration. This affected one (Resident #12) of five residents reviewed for monthly pharmacy reviews. The facility census was 46. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/13/16 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with dementia, osteoarthritis and epilepsy. Review of the physician's orders revealed current orders for acetaminophen (analgesic) 650 milligram (mg) three times daily and Norco (hydrocodone and acetaminophen analgesic) 5 mg - 325 mg four times daily. A total of 3250 mg of acetaminophen was administered daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed acetaminophen and Norco administered daily as ordered for a total of 3.25 gm of acetaminophen administered each day. An additional physician's order indicated to not exceed 3 grams (gm) of acetaminophen daily. Review of monthly pharmacy recommendations revealed…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-02-03 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed regarding acetaminophen dosage. This affected one (Resident #12) of five residents reviewed for medication use. The facility census was 46. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/13/16 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with dementia, osteoarthritis and epilepsy. Review of the physician's orders revealed current orders for acetaminophen (analgesic) 650 milligram (mg) three times daily and Norco (hydrocodone and acetaminophen analgesic) 5 mg - 325 mg four times daily. A total of 3250 mg of acetaminophen was administered daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed acetaminophen and Norco administered daily as ordered with 3.25 gm of acetaminophen administered each day. An additional physician's order indicated to not exceed 3 grams (gm) of acetaminophen daily. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 02/02/22 at 8:40 A.M. verified Resident #12 received 3.25 gm of acetaminophen on 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
WOLFE, STEPHANIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/12/2023
GUNZBURG, ELIIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2015
ELI M GUNZBURG IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/28/2011
FRANK GUNZBURG 2015 SUCCESSION TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/28/2011
NICKELL, GRETCHENIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2019

CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$5.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-8.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.0M
Related-party expense18% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 75%Medicare 7%Other / private 18%

About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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

$308per resident / day
operating cost
$9,352per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$284per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

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 366306. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-23, 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.

What to do next