Independence House
1000 Independence Rd, Fostoria, OH 44830 · Non profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (419) 435-8505 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.0% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.2% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.1% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.8% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.3% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.1% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.5% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.1% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.1% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.32 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.10 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
59.5% 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 62 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.3% 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 47 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 59.5%CMS range 49.4–67.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 6.3–13.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 72.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 46.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 78.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not 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 discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.5–12.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 31.1 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 19 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 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.99 to 0.61 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% 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
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, review of wound clinic notes, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure non-pressure ulcer wound treatments were completed according to physician orders and further failed to monitor ongoing effectiveness of wound treatments by not conducting ongoing assessments of the wounds. This affected one (#8) of four residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 29.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed he was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus Type II with foot ulcers, need for personal assistance, congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and non-pressure chronic ulcer of the right heel and midfoot.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was cognitively intact and required the application of ointments or medications.Review of the care plan revised April 2026 revealed Resident #8 was care planned…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, review of the facility's fall investigations, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a complete and thorough fall investigation for one (#8) resident and further failed to ensure post fall monitoring was completed for two (#8 and #13) residents. This affected two (#8 and #13) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 29. Finding include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 01/01/25. Diagnoses included peripheral vascular disease (PVD), diabetes mellitus with foot ulcers, congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension (high blood pressure), and non-pressure chronic ulcer of the right heel and midfoot. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was cognitively intact and had no falls during the assessment period.Review of the care plan, revised April 2026, revealed Resident #8 was care planned for falls due to deconditioning.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed regarding wound care. This affected one (#33) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 32.Findings include:Review of medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 12/05/25 and discharge date of 01/07/26 with diagnoses including but not limited to atrial fibrillation, psoas muscle abscess, heart failure, chronic gout, bacteremia, osteomyelitis of vertebra lumbar region, neoplasm of uncertain behavior of cerebral meninges, type two diabetes, non-pressure chronic ulcer of other part of right foot with fat layer exposed and hypertension.Review of minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact.Review of physician orders revealed treatment to coccyx triad cream with optifoam daily ordered from 12/06/25 through 12/12/25, sacrum wound cleanse with normal saline (NS) apply Santyl nickel thick, calcium alginate and apply silicone border…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-17 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed as ordered. This affected one (#33) of three residents reviewed for physician orders. The facility census was 32.Findings include:Review of medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 12/05/25 and discharge date of 01/07/26 with diagnoses including but not limited to atrial fibrillation, psoas muscle abscess, heart failure, chronic gout, bacteremia, osteomyelitis of vertebra lumbar region, neoplasm of uncertain behavior of cerebral meninges, type two diabetes, non-pressure chronic ulcer of other part of right foot with fat layer exposed and hypertension.Review of minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact.Review of the hospital discharge orders dated 12/05/25 revealed ergocalciferol 50,000 units by mouth weekly.Review of physician orders dated 12/05/25 revealed ergocalciferol tablet give 5,000 units by mouth weekly on Monday for vitamin D…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan was revised for advanced directive orders. This affected one (#12) of 13 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 10/10/23. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease, polyneuropathy, and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 had intact cognition. Review of the plan of care, initiated 10/12/23 and revised on 10/26/23, revealed Resident #12 had elected a full code (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) status. Review of the physician orders revealed dated 08/15/24 revealed the resident's code status orders were changed from Full Code to Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC). Review of a DNR order form dated 08/15/24 revealed Resident #12 had elected DNRCC. Review of a nurse's note dated 08/14/24 at 9:04…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to timely obtain physician orders for a wound dressing change and complete wound dressing changes as physician ordered. This affected one (#23) of one resident reviewed for skin conditions. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 06/26/23. Diagnoses included hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 had impaired cognition. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/22/24 at 12:05 P.M., revealed dietary staff reported Resident #23 got bit by something in the dining room during lunch. The resident's left forearm was noted to have a raised reddened area. The physician was notified and gave a verbal order for Benadryl 25 milligrams every six hours as needed. Review of a nurse's note dated 09/02/24 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-06-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of a Legionella environmental assessment form, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to complete a Legionella risk assessment and failed to implement a water management program with defined control measures and testing protocols based on standards from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tool kit, Developing a Water management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth and Spread in Buildings, dated 06/05/17. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents residing in the facility. Findings include Review of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) questionnaire for Legionella Environmental Assessment Form, dated 06/2015, utilized by the facility revealed no diagram of the water system outlining all areas of risk for Legionella. Further review of the form revealed the facility also had not specified control measures and testing protocols for Legionella based on standards from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience while assisting a resident with eating. This affected one (#12) of 14 residents observed dining on the secured unit. The facility identified Resident #12 as the only resident on the secured unit who required feeding assistance. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/18/16 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances, dysphagia, lack of coordination, muscle weakness and disorientation. Review of an activities of daily living care plan dated 04/04/18 revealed Resident #12 required reminding, prompting, cueing, and assistance to eat. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/04/19, revealed Resident #12 had short and long term memory issues with severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Resident #12 was assessed as requiring extensive one person physical assistance for eating. Observation on 06/10/19 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for fingernail care received adequate fingernail care as care planned. This affected one (#9) of one resident reviewed for activities of daily living. This had the potential to affect three residents identified by the facility who were dependent on staff assistance with personal hygiene. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/15/16 with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbances, Parkinson's disease and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/08/19, revealed Resident #9 had severely impaired cognition, did not reject any care during the look back period, and required an extensive two plus person physical assistance with personal hygiene. Review of an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit revealed Resident #9 was to have her nail length checked, trimmed, and cleaned on bath day as necessary, and report any changes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 provide documentation of a rationale and an extended timeframe for extending the use of an as needed psychotropic medication beyond 14 days. This affected one (#1) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications with potential to affect nine residents identified by the facility with orders for as needed psychotropic medications. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/27/18 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia without behavioral disturbances, cerebral infarction, major depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Review of a physician order, dated 08/27/18, revealed Resident #1 was ordered the anti-anxiety medication Lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg.) by mouth every 12 hours as needed for anxiety. The physician order had no stop date and remained an active order as of 06/13/19. Review of a physician recommendation form, dated 09/17/18, revealed the facility pharmacy recommended the physician evaluate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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 obtained laboratory values as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#4) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications with potential to affect 31 residents identified by the facility with orders to obtain laboratory values. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/06/13 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances, unspecified psychosis, anxiety, major depression, essential hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of a physician order, dated 02/16/19, revealed Resident #4 was ordered to have a complete blood count (CBC) laboratory test, which was a laboratory test to determine the overall health of a person's blood, obtained every six months with the months of March and September as the intended months to obtain Resident #4's blood. Review of the most recently obtained CBC laboratory values for Resident #4 revealed the laboratory values were obtained on 10/31/18. There…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLANCHARD VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/31/2007 |
| BROUGH, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| COSIANO, FRANK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| DOWLING, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| EDGINGTON, ANNETTE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| HOPKINS, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| JONES, GINGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2015 |
| KENNARD, DAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| KROETZ, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| LAUSE, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| LEWIS, MYRON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| LONGO, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| MALARKY, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| OVERTON, KIRBY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| POLDER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 08/30/2012 |
| REINEKE, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| SHRADER, JEFFERY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| WEBB, ADELE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| BEIDELSCHIES, TIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/24/2003 |
| CYTLAK, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| SCHERER, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/16/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $808K 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365860. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-05, 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.