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

Mount Saint Joseph Rehab Center

21800 Chardon Road, Euclid, OH 44117 · Non profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (216) 531-7426 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (216) 531-7426 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0606) — cited Aug 20191 actual-harm citation
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0606), cited Aug 2019
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS
Urgent care / clinic
26151 Euclid Ave · (216) 261-7970 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
20485 Euclid Ave · (216) 531-1466 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
C-Town1.3 mi
18120 Lanken Ave · (216) 481-1616 · Call to confirm hours
Park
20700 Euclid Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating4★
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 increased9.6%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.7%6.2%5.4%better
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 infection2.3%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.6%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 injury4.5%3.2%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened6.7%6.1%16.1%typical for the state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.1%25.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.3%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control7.0%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table14.7%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine38.0%75.6%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission20.6%24.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit26.4%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.311.731.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.491.801.80worse

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.

49.8% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

49.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
53.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.22U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 53.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 26 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF49.8%CMS range 40.5–62.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.2%CMS range 8.8–16.510.7%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 discharge53.9%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge50.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge50.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 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 stay5.0%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 worsened2.5%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 hospitalization5.8%CMS range 2.7–11.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.701.02Oct 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

0.53
RN hours/ resident / day
1.50
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.02
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.05
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.32
RN hoursweekends
52.5%
Total nursing turnover
37.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 84.7 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.02 is at or above 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 4.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.23 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-10)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2022-08-04)

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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2019-08-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interventions to prevent a fall with injury for Resident #18. Actual Harm occurred when State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #301 propelled Resident #18 in a wheel chair, without footrests. The resident's foot dropped to the floor and she fell, resulting in a hematoma of the forehead and transfer to the hospital. This affected one resident (Resident #18) of one resident reviewed for falls. Findings include: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, physical debility, and osteoarthritis. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required the extensive assistance of one person for all activities of daily living, including locomotion, via wheel chair. The resident was sent to the hospital on [DATE]. Observation on 08/28/19 at 8:06 A.M. revealed an STNA (unidentified) approached Registered Nurse (RN) #302 on the 500-unit…

    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 · F2025-04-10 · tag F0848 — widespread
    Provide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure its arbitration agreement contained all necessary information. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 82. Findings include: Review of the facilities arbitration agreement revealed the agreement did not address the selection of a neutral arbitrator for the arbitration proceedings. Further review of the agreement also revealed it did not address the selection of a neutral venue for arbitration proceedings. The agreement noted Any arbitration conducted pursuant to Article IV (of the admission agreement) shall be conducted at the facility Interview with the Administrator on 04/09/25 at 3:30 P.M. verified the facilities arbitration agreement did not address the selection of a neutral arbitrator or a neutral venue for arbitration proceedings.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a follow-up to a pharmacy recommendation for Resident #51 was completed as required. This affected one (Resident #51) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 82. Findings include: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, high cholesterol and insomnia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #51 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of one staff person for completing her activities of daily living. Review of the pharmacy recommendation for Resident #51 dated 02/09/24 revealed the facilities contracted pharmacist recommended to a review of Resident #51's ordered anti-psychotic medication examined for appropriate diagnoses and necessity. Review of the physician's response to the recommendation revealed Resident #51's primary care physician requested a Psychiatric…

    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 · D2023-10-05 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of an elevated lab value for Resident #5. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for infections. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 6/22/2023. Diagnoses included displaced fracture of cervical vertebra, displaced fracture of clavicle, and osteoarthritis. The resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the Medicare-5 Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had severely impaired cognition. The resident required the extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, and toilet use. Review of physician orders for August 2023 identified orders for a complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic panel (BMP) every Friday starting 07/07/23. A Urinalysis (UA) and Culture and Sensitivity (C&S) were ordered on 08/17/23. Review of lab results from…

    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 · D2023-10-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility did not ensure Resident #5 was adequately monitored after a change in condition. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 6/22/2023. Diagnoses included displaced fracture of cervical vertebra, displaced fracture of clavicle, and osteoarthritis. The resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the Medicare-5 Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had severely impaired cognition. The resident required the extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, and toilet use. Review of the Progress Note from 08/18/23 at 9:18 P.M. revealed Resident #5's vital signs were obtained at 8:00 P.M. The resident's blood pressure was 167/59, pulse was 119, respirations 16, temperature was 96.4 degrees Fahrenheit, and the pulse oximeter…

    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 · D2022-08-04 · tag F0573 — isolated
    Let each resident or the resident's legal representative access or purchase copies of all the resident's records.
    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 interview, record review, and facility procedure review the facility failed to provide copies of the medical record for Resident #222 after request. This affected one resident (Resident #222) of four residents (Resident's #31, #223, #224, and #225) reviewed for the facility honoring the right to have access and/ or purchase copies of medical records upon request. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #222 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Resident #222 passed away on [DATE]. Diagnoses included surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system, personal history of malignant neoplasm of the liver, severe protein- calorie malnutrition, Alzheimer's disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #222's daughter was her responsible party/ guardian. Review of the letter of guardianship dated [DATE] revealed the court deemed Resident #222 incompetent, and Resident #222's daughter was named…

    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 · D2022-08-04 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #54's passive range of motion and splint for the right upper extremity was completed per the occupational therapy recommendation. This affected one resident (Resident #54) of one resident reviewed for use of splints. This had the potential to affect five residents (Resident's #1, #10, #18, #53, #54) that had occupational therapy recommendations for splints. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #54 revealed an admission date of 01/10/18 and diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, hypertension, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the care plan dated 04/27/20 revealed Resident #54 had multiple medical diagnoses including her right side was flaccid and right hemiparesis. Interventions included right hand splint as ordered. There were no interventions regarding passive…

    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 · F2019-08-29 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — widespread
    Not hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to check all potential new hires against the State Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) to ensure no employee had a finding entered into the NAR concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property. This had the potential to affect all 88 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of a document titled Phone List by Department, revealed the record reflected 75 State Tested Nurse Aides (STNAs) currently employed at the facility, 32 of which worked on an as needed (PRN) basis. These employees were checked against the State NAR. Review of a document titled New Hires Last 12 Months, dated 08/29/19 revealed the record reflected 14 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) #820, #825, #830, #835, #840, #845, #850, #855, #860, #875, #880, #885, #890, and #895. There were four Registered Nurses (RN) #800, #805, #810, and #815. Three housekeeping and laundry staff (Housekeeper) #945, #950, and #955. Seven dietary staff (Dietary) #905, #910, #915, #920, #925, #930, and…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-08-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #7 received eating assistance promptly upon the delivery of her food, and had their clothing protector removed when the meal was over. This affected one of four residents reviewed for dignity concerns. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Record review for Resident #7 revealed diagnoses included bipolar disorder, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, and dementia. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and requiring limited assistance from one staff member when eating. Observation of Resident #7 on 08/26/19 at 12:09 P.M. revealed she was sitting upright in her bed with an uncovered, uneaten lunch tray in front of her. She appeared to be awake, and made no effort to eat the food in front of her. Continuous observation revealed the situation unchanged until 12:27 P.M., when an unidentified State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) entered the room and began to assist her with eating. A white towel was wrapped around Resident…

    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 · D2019-08-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #41's care plan was revised and updated to meet her individual needs. This affected one (Resident #41) out of 27 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings include: Resident #41 was admitted to this facility on 07/24/18. Her admitting diagnoses included vascular dementia, fracture of left femur, dementia, and blindness. Her Minimum Data Set Assessment 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] showed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance for bed mobility, toilet use and personal hygiene. For all other activities of daily living she was totally dependant on staff. Her skin assessment from this MDS revealed she was at risk for pressure ulcer development and did at the time of this MDS have skin tears on her legs and arms. This resident resided on the dementia unit and received Hospice services. Review of the resident's plan of care dated 07/25/18 revealed the resident had a potential for actual…

    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
  • No harm found · C2025-04-10 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — widespread
    Ensure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure certified nurse aides (CNAs) received twelve hours of in-services on an annual basis. This affected one (CNA#546) of three CNAs reviewed for employee files. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 82. Findings include: Record review of CNA#546's employee file revealed a hire date of 12/27/16. Review of the employee file revealed CNA #546 only received eight hours of continuing education in 2024. Interview with the Administrator on 04/10/25 at 12:04 P.M. confirmed the above findings.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2019-08-29 · tag F0844 — widespread
    Follow rules about disclosure of ownership requirements and tell the state agency about changes in ownership and/or administrative personnel.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform the Ohio Department of Health when it hired a new Director of Nursing (DON). The total census was 88. Findings include: Interview with the Administrator on 08/29/19 at 4:35 P.M. revealed their Director of Nursing (DON) began work in the facility in January of 2019. They did not know if information regarding her hire had been communicated to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Review of the DON's employee file revealed her hire date was 01/30/19. Review of both that file and the ODH secured website for provider communications revealed no evidence the DON's hire had been communicated to ODH.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • No harm found · B2019-08-29 · tag F0641 — pattern
    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 comprehensive assessments were accurate. This affected three (Residents #19, Resident #46, and Resident #64) of four residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screen - Resident Review. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, diabetes and heart failure. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/07/19, revealed Section A did not indicate a mental illness as identified by Ohio Mental Health and Addiction Services. 2. Review of Resident #46's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with Lewy bodies, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and Parkinson's disease. Review of Resident #46's medical record revealed the MDS 3.0 assessment, dated…

    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 plan of correction
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
GREGG, MARYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/01/2004
SOVACOOL, SARAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 01/07/2022
HOLZHEIMER, TIMOTHYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/08/2013

CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$6.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-55.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$681K
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 64%Medicare 5%Other / private 31%

This home reported $681K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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

$422per resident / day
operating cost
$12,816per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$272per 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 365487. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, 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