Crystal Care Center Of Franklin Furnace
4734 Gallia Pike, Franklin Furnace, OH 45629 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 30 certified beds · (740) 354-9151 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 3.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 62.5% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 52.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 30 beds and averages 23.5 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.82 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% 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
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-30 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were permitted to be served or consume tubular meats (various encased meats that are shaped into a tubular form) whole. This affected one resident (#13) of two residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 24. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an initial admission date of 09/23/24 with a readmission date of 02/24/26. Diagnoses included cirrhosis of the liver, hypomagnesemia, pruritus, cyst of pancreas, ventral hernia, COPD, respiratory failure, esophageal varices, ESBL resistance, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, hypothyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor, neuropathy, morbid obesity, heart failure and hepatic encephalopathy. Review of the care plan dated 10/01/24 revealed the resident was at risk for nutrition/hydration problems related to obesity status, diuretic medication use, poor dental status, inadequate intakes at times,…
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 · D2026-04-30 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident representatives were notified of changes in condition. This affected one resident (#25) of 15 sampled residents. The facility census was 24. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 06/07/23. Diagnoses included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, history of MRSA, legal blindness, adult failure to thrive, chronic conjunctivitis, osteoarthritis, congestive heart failure, Vitamin D deficiency, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depressive disorder, dysphagia, age related nuclear cataract and diabetes mellitus. Review of the care plan dated 06/20/23 revealed the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to decreased mobility, diabetes mellitus, incontinence, picking at her skin intermittent, moisture associated skin damage (MASD) and has current treatment for MASD with treatment in place. Interventions included…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-30 · 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 observation, medical record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive wound assessments were conducted and failed to monitor burns for worsening skin impairment and signs/symptoms of infection. The facility also failed to ensure physician orders were implemented as ordered. This affected two residents (#25 and #26) of three residents reviewed for wounds and one resident (#27) of five residents reviewed for unecessary medications. The facility census was 24. Findings Include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 06/07/23. Diagnoses included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, legal blindness, adult failure to thrive, chronic conjunctivitis, osteoarthritis, congestive heart failure, Vitamin D deficiency, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depressive disorder, dysphagia, age related nuclear cataract and diabetes mellitus. Review of the care plan dated 06/20/23 revealed the resident was at risk…
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 · D2026-01-05 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received food in a form to meet their individual chewing or swallowing needs. This affected three of seven individuals who required food/drinks with altered texture (Residents #14, #15, and #17). The facility census was 28. Findings Include:1.Review of the record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 11/17/25, diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A nutrition assessment by the dietician on 11/23/25 stated the resident required a diet of mechanical soft texture with chopped meats.Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment completed 12/18/25 documented a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. MDS further documented the resident had no choking or swallowing issues. Review of physician's order on 12/05/25 indicated the resident was to receive a mechanical soft diet with chopped meats. Observations on 12/31/25 at 12:10 P.M. revealed Resident #14 to receive her…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interviews, and observation, the facility failed to ensure development and implementation of comprehensive resident care plans. This affected three (Residents #3, #12, #129) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 29. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 09/06/05 with diagnoses including heart failure, dementia, and presence of cardiac pacemaker. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #3 dated 01/10/24 revealed this resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Review for the care plan for Resident #3 initiated 09/06/05 revealed it did not include care and monitoring of the resident's pacemaker. Interview on 03/06/24 at 2:45 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #3 had a pacemaker in place but was unsure how often pacemaker checks were to be conducted. The DON further confirmed Resident #3's care plan did not outline the care and services the facility was to provide for the resident's pacemaker. 2. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-07 · 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
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided to residents with casts to the extremities. This affected one (Resident #129) of one residents with a cast and 13 sampled residents. The facility census was 28. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #129 revealed an admission date of 02/22/24 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus type two, hypertension, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with metastasis to the bones and fracture of the shaft of the right humerus. Review of the plan of care for Resident #129 initiated 02/22/24 revealed it did not include care and treatment regarding the cast to the resident's right arm. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #129 dated February 2024 and March 2024 revealed they did not include care related to the resident's cast to the right arm, circulation checks or skin checks. Review of the MDS for Resident #129 dated 02/25/24 revealed the resident was cognitively impaired and required…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure the physician provided a response to consultant pharmacist recommendations. This affected one (Resident #4) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 28. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 09/02/23 with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, depression and unspecified psychosis. Review of the physician orders for Resident #4 dated March 2024 revealed the resident was ordered Seroquel (antipsychotic) 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth for agitation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #4 dated 12/14/23 revealed resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the consultant pharmacist's recommendation for Resident #4 dated 01/30/24 revealed the resident was receiving Seroquel for a diagnosis of agitation and it was recommended to consider changing to an appropriate diagnosis or titration off the medication. The physician signed the recommendation on 02/17/24 but…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-26 · 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 observation, interview, record review and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were in place for wound care treatment for residents. This affected one ( Resident #18) of one residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 23. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 06/06/19 with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the brain with surgery, open wound to scalp and frontal lobe function deficit following cerebrovascular disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #18 required limited assistance of one staff person for activities of daily living. Resident #18 did not have any pressure areas but did require a non surgical dressing with or without topical medication other than to his feet. Review of the physician orders for 04/22 revealed there was not an order for treatment to the open area to Resident #18's scalp. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-26 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents pain medications were available for administration and failed to ensure ordered pain medication was administered as ordered. This affected one resident (#21) out of the two residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 23. Findings include: Record review for Resident #21 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including osteoarthritis, nondisplaced fracture of the scapula and left shoulder, anxiety, obesity, and acquired absence of limb. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/06/22, revealed this resident had mildly impaired cognition. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. This resident was assessed to have occasional pain and to have received scheduled pain medication. Review of the care plan, dated 03/14/22, revealed this resident was at risk for pain.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide an appropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic. This affected one resident (Resident #17) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #17 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses: osteoarthritis, atherosclerotic heart disease, dementia, nicotine dependence, coronary angioplasty, COVID-19, mood disorder, benign prostatic hyperplagia, pain, diabetes mellitis, anxiety, depression, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, urine retention, hyperlipidemia, and nutritional deficiencies. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 02/09/22 revealed this resident had moderate to severe cognitive impairments. Review of Physician Orders revealed this resident is receiving the following medications: Seroquel 25 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth daily for unspecified dementia with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BERGSTEN, PAUL | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2015 |
| DAPORE, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2015 |
| WHEATON, ANTHONY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 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.
This home reported $235K 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
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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 366003. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-30, 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.