Rae Ann Geneva
839 W Main Street, Geneva, OH 44041 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 76 certified beds · (440) 466-5733 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 fell from 4 to 1 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 | 2.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 72.6% | 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 | 1.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.3% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.5% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.3% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.7% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.73 | 1.73 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.41 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
40.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 83 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 34.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 66 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 40.8%CMS range 32.8–49.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.6%CMS range 8.2–15.5 | 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 | 34.9% | 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 | 28.8% | 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 | 28.8% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 3.6% | 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 | 5.6%CMS range 2.5–10.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 76 beds and averages 61.1 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 15 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.75 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
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.
34 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2026-01-20 · 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, review of the hospital records and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program to prevent the worsening of pressure ulcers, ensure timely and accurate assessments were completed, ensure treatments were implemented timely, and ensure nutritional interventions were implemented as ordered for Resident #313.Actual Harm occurred beginning on 10/07/25 when Resident #313 who was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, bathing, bed mobility, and transfers returned from the hospital with a Stage II pressure ulcer (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed, without slough, may also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum filled blister) to the coccyx which was not measured or described and had no treatment orders were put in place until 10/13/25 when it was assessed as a worsening Stage III pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss,…
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 before2026-04-16 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, email correspondence review and facility policy review, the facility failed to release a deceased resident to the correct funeral home. This affected one resident (#58) of three residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #58 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included aftercare following joint replacement surgery, dementia, and type two diabetes. Resident #58 expired and was discharged from the facility on [DATE].Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #58 had a death in the facility.Review of the care plan dated [DATE] revealed Resident #58 had a long-term placement in the facility and had an advanced directive of Do-Not-Resuscitate Comfort Care Arrest (DNR-CCA) with interventions that included providing comfort, dignity, safety and providing funeral arrangements as needed.Review of the physician order dated [DATE]…
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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 resident record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide bed hold notifications. This affected two residents (#28 and #59) of three residents reviewed for bed hold notices. The facility census was 55.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atherosclerosis heart disease, post-laminectomy syndrome, and hypertension. Resident #28 had a designated representative, and care conference person in place.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, that indicated he was alert and oriented with cognition impairment. Resident #28 was impaired on both sides of the upper extremities and dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs).Review of the care plan dated 03/08/26 revealed Resident #28 was a long-term resident and was not determined to return to 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-16 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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 resident record review, staff interviews, and review of email correspondence, insurance statement and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the physician did not falsely document and bill for services not provided. This affected one resident (#59) of ten residents reviewed for false billing. The facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, pulmonary fibrosis, and dysphagia. Resident #59 discharged from the facility on 01/16/26.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 had a memory problem, modified independence regarding tasks of daily life, and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs).Review of the care plan dated 10/31/25 revealed Resident #59 was a long-term resident and was not determined to return to the community.Additional review of Resident 59's medical record revealed she transferred to 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 resident record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident record was documented accurately. This affected one resident (#59) of ten residents reviewed for accurate medical records. The facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, pulmonary fibrosis, and dysphagia. Resident #59 was discharged from the facility on 01/16/26.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 had a memory problem, modified independence regarding tasks of daily life, and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs).Review of the care plan dated 10/31/25 revealed Resident #59 was a long-term resident and was not determined to return to the community.Additional review of Resident 59's medical record revealed she transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for a change in condition and did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2026-01-20 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on personnel record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a staff member working in the capacity of a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) met the state and federal requirements prior to providing direct resident care. The facility permitted CNA #674 to perform CNA duties without successfully completing the competency evaluation and obtaining an active CNA certification. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 60.Findings include:Interview with the Human Resources (HR) Director #628 on 01/07/26 at 11:13 A.M. revealed CNA #674 was hired at the facility on 07/26/24. He completed first Nurse Aide Training class on 07/23/24; he later took his test but did not pass the written portion of the test. The HR Director further stated CNA #674 tested again but again did not pass the written portion of the test. The HR Director stated CNA #674 did not show up to take his third test and was unable to test again until he took entire Nurse Aide Training class again. CNA #674 completed the entire Nurse Aide Training…
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 before2026-01-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 policy and staff interview, the facility failed to report injury of unknown origin to the State Survey Agency as required. This affected one (Resident #313) of one resident reviewed for an injury of unknown origin. The facility census was 60.Findings include:Review of Resident #313's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/07/22 with diagnoses including local infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, acute on chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, pulmonary fibrosis, dysphagia, hypoxemia, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, gout, anemia, age-related osteoporosis, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, chronic pain syndrome, chronic kidney disease, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, myocardial infarction, osteoarthritis of knee, cognitive communication deficit, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), repeated falls, and legal blindness.Review of Resident #313's Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
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 before2026-01-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, facility policy review, review of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the facility failed to ensure staff used appropriate infection control practices for Resident #305 during incontinence care and Resident #337 during wound care. This affected two residents (#305 and #337) of three residents reviewed for infection control and had the potential to affect all 60 residents residing in the facility.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #305 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, fall on same level, unspecified, subsequent encounter, encounter for other orthopedic aftercare cardiomegaly, muscle weakness (generalized),other symbolic dysfunctions, cognitive communication deficit, need for assistance with personal care, vascular dementia, mild, without behavioral…
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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the medical director attended the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. This had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing at the facility. Findings included: Review of QAPI meeting attendance sign in sheets dated 12/27/23, 01/16/24, 02/20/24, 03/19/24, 04/16/24, 05/22/24, 06/26/24, 07/24/24, 08/02/24, 09/25/24, 10/24/24, 11/26/24, 12/27/24, 01/23/25, 02/25/25, 03/26/25, and 04/22/25 revealed the Medical Director/Primary Care Physician (PCP) #600 did not attend the above meetings. Interview on 05/18/25 at 3:58 P.M. with Administrator verified the Medical Director/PCP #600 did not sign any of the QAPI meeting attendance sheets and she had no evidence from 12/27/23 to 04/22/25 that he attended a QAPI meeting at least quarterly. Review of the facility policy labeled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program- Design and Scope, dated February 2020, revealed the facility QAPI program was ongoing, comprehensive and addresses all care and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-05-21 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain the building floors in safe and clean condition. This had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of a floor repair quote dated 03/22/25 revealed the quote included installation of vinyl floor tiles to the facility's front areas, halls and nurses' stations, but it did not seem to include repair to resident rooms. Observation on 05/19/25 at 1:37 P.M. of the environment revealed the following: The front foyer and entry way had various dark soiled areas with one large area near the right front entrance door. Multiple areas of the floor appear worn and scratched. There were various scuffs, and two small circular areas cracked and sunken. The carpeted area in the building front near the dining room which included the television area and around the nurses' station had multiple small and large dark stained areas. The floor which borders the front of the nurses' station outward…
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 · E2025-05-21 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the required timeframe (within 92 days from the previous assessment). This affected nine (Residents #11, #20, #21, #22, #26, #29, #41, #42 and #60) out of 11 residents reviewed for quarterly MDS assessments. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 07/31/11 and diagnoses included Parkinsonism, dementia and diabetes mellitus (DM) type two. Review of the MDS assessments for Resident #11 revealed the last quarterly assessment completed was dated 12/31/24. There was no quarterly assessment completed thereafter as required. Interview on 05/19/25 at 10:26 A.M. with MDS Coordinator #333 verified Resident #11 had no quarterly assessment completed after 12/31/24 within the required timeframe. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 01/09/16 and diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-21 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete and submit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the required timeframes. This affected 11 (Residents #11, #20, #21, #22, #26, #29, #41, #42, #60, #62 and #70) out of 11 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 07/31/11 and diagnoses included Parkinsonism, dementia and diabetes mellitus (DM) type two. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #11 with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/31/24 revealed it was completed on 02/13/25. The assessment was not completed within the required timeframe, which was 14 days after the ARD of 12/31/24. Interview on 05/19/25 at 10:26 A.M. with MDS Coordinator #333 verified Resident #11's assessment was not completed timely. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 01/09/16 and diagnoses included chronic…
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 · E2025-05-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to revise care plans for Residents #3 and #25 to include the use and monitoring of seat belts and alarms as restrictive devices and failed to complete comprehensive care plans within the required timeframe (within 21 days after admission) for Residents #60 and #70. This affected four (Residents #3, #25, #60 and #70) out of four residents reviewed for comprehensive care plan completion and revision. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 08/28/03 with diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease affecting the right dominant side, speech and language deficits following cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and vascular dementia. Review of a physician order dated 09/17/24 indicated Resident #3 had a Velcro seat belt to the wheelchair for positioning and safety. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data…
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 · E2025-05-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
Based on record review, review of insulin manufacture guidelines, observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure insulin was dated after opening and failed to ensure insulin was disposed of per manufacture guidelines. This affected four (Residents #8, #11, #63, and #131) out of nine (Residents #5, #8, #11, #12, #41, #47, #63, #129, and #131) that had their insulin on the East and/or North medication cart. This had the potential to affect 12 (Residents #5, #8, #10, #11, #12, #41, #46, #47, #63, #129, #131, and #179) that had orders for insulin. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 12/09/14 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes and hypertension. Review of the May 2025 physician's orders revealed Resident #11 had an order dated 11/22/24 for Lantus solution (insulin) 100 units per milliliter (ml) inject eight units subcutaneously (SQ) once a day due to diabetes. Review of the care plan revealed Resident #11 had the potential for hypoglycemia and/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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-21 · 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 record review, interview, review of the facility self-reported incident (SRI) and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Primary Care Physician (PCP) #600 was notified of Resident #9's unknown injury. This affected one (Resident #9) out of one resident reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility census was 66. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 10/10/20 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, muscle weakness, cirrhosis of liver, diabetes, and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #9 had impaired cognition. She required substantial to maximum assistance with toileting hygiene and lower dressing. She required partial to moderate assistance with transfers. Review of the nursing note dated 04/28/25 authored by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #404 revealed Resident #9 had scattered discoloration noted during her shower. She had large…
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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication was reviewed by a practitioner after 14 days for necessity and appropriateness. This affected one (Resident #33) out of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 03/20/19 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, major depressive disorder recurrent, adjustment disorder with anxiety, and vascular dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #33 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan last reviewed on 03/12/25 revealed Resident #33 had potential for adverse effects from antianxiety medications and used PRN antianxiety medications for anxiety. Interventions included administering medications as ordered by 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-21 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 complete an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the required timeframe (within 366 days from the previous comprehensive assessment) for Resident #22. This affected one (Resident #22) out of 11 residents reviewed for comprehensive MDS assessments. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission date of 05/13/20 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus type two. Review of the MDS assessments for Resident #33 revealed the last comprehensive assessment completed was an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE]. There was no comprehensive assessment completed thereafter as required. Interview on 05/19/25 at 10:26 A.M. with MDS Coordinator #333 verified Resident #22 had no comprehensive assessment completed since 04/01/24 within the required timeframe. Review of the facility policy, Comprehensive Assessments, revised March…
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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide residents and representatives with a written summary of the baseline care plan. This affected two (Residents #76 and #77) of two residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #76 revealed an admission date of 02/18/25 and discharge date of 03/07/25. Diagnoses included nonrheumatic aortic valve stenosis, nonrheumatic mitral valve insufficiency, pulmonary hypertension, nonrheumatic tricuspid valve insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #76 was rarely or never understood. The baseline care plan dated 02/18/25 included Resident #76's use of antibiotics for a urinary tract infection, diuretics due to CHF, cognitive status and needs for activities of daily living assistance.…
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 before2025-05-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan to include trauma-informed care for Residents #25 and #140. This affected two (Residents #25 and #140) out of two residents reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility reported two (Residents #25 and #140) who had trauma related diagnoses. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 02/18/17 with diagnoses of dementia, major depressive disorder recurrent, generalized anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Review of the quarterly MDS assessment completed 01/11/25 revealed Resident #25 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the physician orders effective May 2025 revealed no orders related to trauma-informed care other than to consult psychotherapies. Review of the assessments for Resident #25 revealed no trauma screening or assessments completed since admission. Review of 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-21 · 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 record review, observation, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly monitor and maintain safety interventions which were in place for Resident #25. This affected one (Resident #25) out of two residents reviewed for safety interventions. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 02/18/17 with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus type two, dementia, major depressive disorder recurrent, generalized anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 01/11/25 revealed Resident #25 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of a physician order dated 09/17/24 indicated Resident #25 had an alarming Velcro seat belt to the wheelchair for positioning and safety. Another physician order dated 03/17/25 specified an additional pressure alarm was applied to the wheelchair for safety. Review of 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, observation and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to clean Resident #10's Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) (machine used to treat sleep apnea) equipment and mask as recommended. This affected one (Resident #10) out of one resident reviewed for use of CPAP. This had the potential to affect two (Residents #9 and #10) who had orders for CPAPs. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 11/03/21 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes and hypertension. Review of the undated care plan revealed Resident #10 had diagnoses of COPD and obstructive sleep apnea. Resident #10 utilized a BiPap (Bilevel positive airway pressure) with oxygen every night. Interventions included oxygen therapy as ordered, head of bed elevated as tolerated, and monitor for difficulty breathing. There was nothing in the care plan regarding…
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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to adequately train staff on trauma related care and provide trauma-informed care to Residents #25 and #140. This affected two (Residents #25 and #140) out of two residents reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility reported two (Residents #25 and #140) who had trauma-related diagnoses. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 02/18/17 with diagnoses of dementia, major depressive disorder recurrent, generalized anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 01/11/25 revealed Resident #25 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan updated on 04/18/25 indicated Resident #25 had impaired cognition including poor memory and poor choices. The resident had depression, anxiety, and a history of alcohol abuse, who demonstrated behaviors related 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interviews, review of facility policy, observation, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation on the medication administration record (MAR) for Resident #43 and the treatment administration record (TAR) for Resident #25. The facility also failed to routinely assess seat belts and alarms for necessity, appropriateness and least restrictive. This affected two (Residents #25, and #43) out of 21 medical records reviewed for accuracy, and two (Residents #3 and #25) out of two residents reviewed for restraints. The facility identified 13 residents (#4, #5, #9, #11, #16, #25, #26, #29, #33, #38, #52, #64 and #135) who had seat belts or alarms as restrictive devices. The facility census was 66. Findings included:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 12/20/21 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, indwelling urethral catheter, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the May 2025 physician's orders revealed Resident #43 had an order dated 05/16/25 for…
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 before2025-04-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, review of the memorandum QSO-24-08-NH and facility policy review, the facility failed to utilize enhance barrier precautions (EBP) when indicated for Residents #9 and #34. This affected two residents (#9 and #34) out of three residents reviewed for the donning of EBP. The facility reported 11 residents (#9, #10, #16, #18, #34, #36, #46, #48, #51, #53, and #54) who were identified on EBP. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 04/01/25 with diagnoses including osteomyelitis (a bone infection, typically caused by bacteria) of vertebra, chronic ulcer of right foot, and diabetes. Review of the April 2025 physician orders revealed Resident #34 had an order to access and flush her Med Port (a device implanted under the skin to provide long-term access to a large vein near the heart for possible intravenous access) with normal saline 0.9 percent intravenously 10 milliliters (ml) prior 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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-12-24 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to serve food at appropriate temperatures. This had the potential to affect 61 residents who eat food prepared by the facility (all residents except Resident #21, #28, and #62). The total census was 64. Findings include: Interview with Resident #56 on 12/26/24 at 8:27 A.M. revealed the food was often served cold. Observation of a test tray for breakfast on 12/26/24 at 9:22 A.M. revealed it contained scrambled eggs, toast, and canned pears. The toast tasted unpalatably cool. The eggs tasted unpalatably lukewarm and had a temperature of 123 degrees Fahrenheit. No concerns were noted with the pears. The food was served on a room temperature plate and covered with a clear plastic lid. Interview with Dietary Director #301 on 12/26/24 at 9:25 A.M. confirmed the above findings. She said residents had raised past concerns with the food temperature. The facility did not have a plate warmer and only had five rubber dish containers to maintain heat. Review of the facility's food and nutrition services policy dated 10/2017…
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 · F2023-12-18 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, review of the call light detail report, call light policy, nursing staff schedules, payroll based journal (PBJ), nursing staff punch detail, the staffing tool and the facility assessment, the facility failed to respond to call lights in a timely manner for Resident #8, #32, #50 and #221, and failed to meet the minimum staffing requirement for all quarters of fiscal year 2023. This affected four residents (#8, #32, #50, and #221) of five residents reviewed for sufficient staffing and call light response times, and had the potential to affect all residents living in the facility. The facility census was 67. Findings include: 1. Interview on 12/11/23 at 11:09 A.M with Resident #14 stated sometimes there were not enough staff and call light response times were 20 minutes. Interview on 12/11/23 at 11:12 A.M. with Resident #221 stated call light response times were anywhere between 30 minutes to one hour and half. Interview on 12/11/23 at 2:17 P.M. with Resident #50 revealed she felt they were not enough staff because the call light response times were sometimes 30…
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 · D2023-12-18 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain proper written authorization to open resident accounts for Resident #40, #51 and #56. This affected three residents (#40, #51 and #56) of the five residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 67. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 09/03/21 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vascular dementia. The daughter of Resident #40 was listed as financial power of attorney (POA). Review of Resident #40's resident fund account on 12/14/23 revealed the authorization form was unsigned by the resident or financial POA.The signature line titled Signature of Legal Representative was signed by an employee of Resident Fund Management Service the company managing resident funds for the facility. 2. Record review for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 10/12/22 with diagnoses including anxiety, spinal stenosis, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Resident #51 was listed as their own financial representative. Review of Resident #51's…
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 · D2023-12-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to exercise reasonable care for the protection of Resident #50's personal property from loss or theft. This affected one resident (#50) of one resident reviewed for personal property. The facility census was 67. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #50 revealed an admission date of 12/30/21. Diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), legal blindness, and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #50 had intact cognition. Review of the Resident Grievance/Concern Log dated October 2023 through December 2023 revealed no missing items reported by Resident #50. Interview on 12/11/23 at 2:14 P.M. with Resident #50 revealed she had a black sweater with her name written on it, and the sweater went missing about a month ago. Resident #50 stated she reported it to staff, had not heard anything else about it and it was not replaced. Interview on 12/13/23 at 4:50 P.M.…
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 before2023-12-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate care plan for Resident #7. This affected one resident (#7) of 27 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 67. Findings include: Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/01/22. Diagnoses included aphasia following cerebrovascular disease, spastic hemiplegia, peripheral vascular disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary tract infection Resident #7 was prescribed anticoagulant therapy of apixaban five milligram tablet two times a day by mouth for a diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease. Review of Resident #7's nurse progress notes indicated he was resistant to care including incontinence care. Review of Resident #7's physician's orders indicated Resident #7 had been prescribed antibiotic therapy on two occasions since admission for urinary tract infections. Review of Resident #7's Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
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 before2023-12-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed at least weekly for Resident #8 and #47 who were receiving oxygen therapy. This affected two residents (Residents #8 and #47) of the 22 residents (Residents #5, #6, #8, #9, #10, #14, #15, #19, #20, #23, #24, #28, #29, #30, #31, #35, #46, #47, #59, #66, #221, and #273.) the facility identified as receiving oxygen therapy. The facility census was 67. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #8's medical records revealed an admission date of 10/02/23. Diagnoses included obstructive sleep apnea, morbid obesity, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (an absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Review of the December 2023 physician orders revealed an order for oxygen at four liters/minute via nasal cannula (a tube with two prongs inserted in nasal openings to deliver oxygen). continuously to maintain…
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 · Ecited before2023-08-17 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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 interview and record review the facility did not ensure residents were treated in a dignified respectful manner. This affected three residents (#9, #32 and #40) out of five residents reviewed for resident's rights and had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 10/12/22 with diagnoses including aftercare following surgery of the digestive system, panic disorder, spinal stenosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, and anxiety disorder. Review of undated care plan revealed Resident #9 had PTSD related to sexual abuse as a child. She experienced anxiety and does not sleep well at night. Interventions included encourage the resident to discuss feelings and provide reassurance that she in a safe environment. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #9 had impaired cognition. She had no behaviors and required extensive…
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 before2023-08-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy the facility did not ensure allegations of potential staff to resident abuse were reported to the state agency. This affected one resident (Resident #32) out of five residents reviewed for abuse and had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 08/07/23 with diagnoses including surgical aftercare following surgery due to neoplasm to the nervous system, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right non-dominant side, hypertension, and major depression. Review of the Admission/ Medicare Five-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 had intact cognition and no behaviors. He required extensive assist of staff with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Review of a witness statement dated 08/16/23 at 3:00 P.M. and completed by 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy the facility did not ensure allegations of potential staff to resident abuse were thoroughly investigated in a timely manner. This affected one resident (Resident #32) out of five residents reviewed for abuse and had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 08/07/23 with diagnoses including surgical aftercare following surgery due to neoplasm to the nervous system, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right non-dominant side, hypertension, and major depression. Review of the Admission/ Medicare Five-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 had intact cognition and no behaviors. He required extensive assist of staff with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Review of a witness statement dated 08/16/23 at 3:00 P.M. and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-12-18 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure to implement policies and procedures to include screening of all employees against the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) to identify if an employee had a finding concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of resident property. This had the potential to affect all 67 residents living in the facility. The facility census was 67. Findings include: Review of the personnel files for the Administrator, Dietary Aide (DA) #680 and #828, Dietary Manager (DM) #613, Maintenance Assistant (MA) #885, Activities Assistant (AA) #630, Receptionist #614 and Housekeepers (HK) #600, #623, #650, #806, #811, #843, #871, #872, #874, and #879 revealed no evidence they were screened against the State of Ohio NAR. A review of the Ohio Nurse Aide Registry checks run on 12/18/23, during the annual survey, for the Administrator, DA #680 and #828, DM #613, MA #885, AA #630, Receptionist #614 and HK #600, #623, #650, #806, #811, #843, #871, #872, #874, and #879 revealed no evidence of reported…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA ASSETS HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/17/2022 |
| RA INVESTMENT OH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 35% | since 05/17/2022 |
| RA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 53% | since 05/17/2022 |
| GEWIRTZ, JONATHAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 13% | since 05/17/2022 |
| NEIL BAY MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/17/2025 |
| HERRON, DANIELLE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/17/2022 |
| LELE, SHREENIWAS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/17/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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.
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 366047. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-21, 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.