Jennings Hall

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

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.

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.

54.8% 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 196 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 41.0% 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 100 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 156 beds and averages 160.2 residents a day — about 103% occupied, or roughly -4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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.

17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2025-10-21 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #74 was treated with respect and dignity. This affected one resident (#74) out of three residents reviewed for respect and dignity. The facility census was 168. Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including transient cerebral ischemic attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, peripheral autonomic neuropathy, anxiety disorder, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, insomnia, muscle weakness, essential tremor, and foot drop. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment revealed Resident #74 a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Interview on 10/16/25 at 11:51 A.M. with Resident #74's responsible party revealed that during review of video camera footage placed in Resident 74's room, she observed…

  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 · D2025-10-21 · tag F0620 — isolated
  Not require residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits, or pay privately as a condition of admission; and must tell residents what care they do not provide.
  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 review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure admission paperwork was signed as required. This affected one resident (#74) of three residents reviewed for admission. The facility census was 168. Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including transient cerebral ischemic attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, peripheral autonomic neuropathy, anxiety disorder, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, insomnia, muscle weakness, essential tremor, foot drop. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment revealed Resident #74 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Interview on 10/16/25 at 11:00 A.M. with Resident #74's responsible party revealed she was concerned because the facility had called her stating they did not have Resident #74's admission paperwork,…

  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 · D2025-10-21 · 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, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided Resident #74 with the appropriate level of assistance to ensure a safe transfer and bed mobility. This affected one resident (#74) of three residents reviewed or transfers and bed mobility and had the potential to affect 60 residents (#15, #109, #95, #66, #82, #157, #78, #165, #162, #153, #87, #154, #124, #123, #143, #53, #42, #116, #27, #29, #49, #69, #125, #32, #93, #47, #25, #110, #104, #155, #89, #108, #99, #40, #112, #51, #14, #16, #57, #37, #71, #128, #76, #34, #120, #161, #156, #13, #60, #94, #115, #113, #126, #160, #15, #115, #113, #126, #160, and #24) identified by the facility as dependent on staff for transfers from bed to chair and 20 residents (#66, #82, #122, #153, #157, #165, #51, #104, #156, #15, #63, #113, #115, #126, #160, #32, #125, #150, #27, and #80) residents identified by the facility as dependent on staff to roll left and right in bed. The facility census was 168.…

  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 · Dcited before2025-10-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  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 medications were secured until consumed by residents. This affected one resident (#87) of 25 residents (#28, #42, #52, #53, #56, #64, #75, #84, #87, #114, #116, #117, #122, #124, #127, #132, #139, #142, #146, #153, #154, #162, #165, #166, and #167) residing on the Main Level [NAME] Unit. The facility census was 168. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #87 revealed an admission date of 12/12/24 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, primary generalized osteoarthritis, and chronic diastolic heart failure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #87 had intact cognition. Interview on 10/16/25 at 9:11 A.M. noted Resident #87 sitting at a table in the dining room. Interview with the resident revealed no concerns; however, further observations revealed a medication cup sitting on the table filled with 19 medications. No medications were controlled…

  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 · F2024-09-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served under sanitary conditions. This affected all 164 residents receiving meals from the kitchen, as the facility identified five residents (#10, #13, #38, #71 and #359) who did not consume meals by mouth. The facility census was 169. Findings include: Observation on 09/09/24 at 10:13 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #642 during the initial kitchen tour revealed DM #642 had a full facial beard from ear to ear approximately one-inch long hair growth and was not wearing a beard net while working in the kitchen. DM #642 confirmed he was not wearing a beard net and should have been. Observation on 09/09/24 at 10:35 A.M. of DM #642 testing the level of quaternary sanitizer with a test strip for the three compartment sink revealed when he dipped the strip into the sanitizer water the strip did not change color. DM #642 confirmed the test strip did not change color so there was not an appropriate amount of sanitizer in the water to sanitize dishes. DM #642 was unable to provide…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive discharge assessments were completed at discharge. This affected two (Resident's #27 and #162) of 38 residents reviewed. The facility census was 169. Findings include 1. Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed a 03/15/24 admission date with diagnoses including hyperlipidemia, dementia and malnutrition. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Assessments revealed an admission MDS was completed 03/28/24. There was no evidence of a subsequent MDS. Review of the nurse notes included the resident discharged home with family 04/16/24. Interview 09/12/24 at 10:05 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #659 verified the facility failed to submit a discharge MDS Assessment. LPN #659 included it was human error. On 09/12/24 at 4:07 P.M. the Administrator emailed the facility did not have a discharge MDS policy. 2. Review of Resident #162's medical record revealed a 12/18/22 admission with diagnoses including renal insufficiency, dementia, and arthritis. Review of the MDS 3.0 Assessments revealed a…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  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 provide nutritional care and services consistent with Resident #88's assessed needs for eating meals to maintain nutritional status. This affected one resident (#88)of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The census was 169. Findings include: Record review of Resident #88 revealed she was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses including glaucoma, unspecified visual loss, and unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition. An order dated 09/05/24 called for her to receive a divided dish with meals. Her dietician assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had symptoms of possible swallowing disorder including residual food in the mouth after meals and coughing or choking during meals. Record review of therapy documentation for Resident #88 revealed on 08/21/24 they trialed use of a divided dish to improve her independence with meals. A note on 08/21/24 revealed staff did not provide sufficient cueing for the resident, and a note on 09/02/24 revealed the…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-16 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to obtain weights as ordered by the physician and according to the policy for Resident #164. This affected one resident (#164) of three residents review for weight loss. The facility census was 163. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #164 revealed an admission date of 05/27/21. Diagnoses included arthritis, anemia, anorexia, stage four chronic kidney disease, and dysphagia. Resident #164 expired on 12/26/23 at the facility. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #164 dated 11/09/23 revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. She had an impairment to both sides of her body on the upper and lower halves, required substantial or maximum assistance for eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene, toileting, showering or bathing, and upper body dressing. She was totally dependent on staff for lower body dressing. The resident had no swallowing disorders or dental issues. She had weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or 10% or more in the last six…

  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 · D2024-01-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure complete, thorough, and accurate medical record for Resident #164. This affected one resident (#164) of three residents reviewed for documentation. The facility census was 163. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #164 revealed an admission date of 05/27/21. Diagnoses included arthritis, anemia, anorexia, stage four chronic kidney disease, and dysphagia. The resident expired in the facility on 12/26/23. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #164 was moderately cognitively impaired. She had an impairment to both sides of her body on the upper and lower halves, required substantial or maximum assistance for eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene, toileting, showering or bathing, and upper body dressing. She was totally dependent for lower body dressing. The resident had no swallowing disorders or dental issues. She had weight loss of 5% or…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on family and staff interviews, medical record review, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents, and review of camera footage, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) was safely repositioned in bed. This affected one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility census was 158. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, depression, and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment and required substantial/maximal assistance from staff to roll to the right and left side. Review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) dated 11/06/23 revealed Resident #1's power of attorney (POA) (also Resident #1's grandson) reported an allegation of physical abuse towards Resident #1. The POA stated when watching the video of care provided to…

  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

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

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.

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.

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