Villa Georgetown Rehabilitation And Healthcare Cen
8065 Dr Faul Road, Georgetown, OH 45121 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (937) 378-4178 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 3 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 | 1.9% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 14.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 78.5% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.2% | 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 | 4.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.2% | 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 | 88.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.9% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.82 | 1.73 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.55 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
57.2% 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 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.0% 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 25 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 57.2%CMS range 43.9–67.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.3%CMS range 9.3–16.0 | 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 | 64.0% | 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 | 48.0% | 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 | 64.0% | 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 | 98.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.3% | 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 8.8%CMS range 5.3–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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 100 beds and averages 76.3 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 24 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.27 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 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 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-02-25 · 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, family interview, staff interview, review of the facility therapy to nursing communication form and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate staff assistance during transfers to prevent falls. This resulted in actual harm on 01/15/25 at approximately 12:25 P.M. to Resident #100 when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #20 completed a hands-on transfer of the resident from the wheelchair to the bed without the assistance of additional staff. Resident #100 sustained a fall to the floor during the transfer, resulting in a left femur fracture. This affected one resident (#100) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 84. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #100 revealed an admission date of 01/13/25. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), spastic hemiplegia (causes muscle tightness…
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.
- Actual harm · G2020-03-12 · 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
Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility's policy and review of the information from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), the facility failed to ensure timely treatments, interventions, and assessments were done for a resident's pressure ulcers. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #226's pressure ulcers to his bilateral heels and sacrum deteriorated in condition and increased in size from the delay in treatment. This affected one (Resident #226) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified three residents with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #226 revealed a re-admission date of 03/05/20. Diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, bipolar, hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Review of the nursing re-admission assessment, dated 03/05/20, revealed Resident #226 had two stage one pressure ulcers (intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area) to the left and right buttocks and three unstageable pressure areas (full…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-27 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents were accurate regarding resident current conditions and diagnoses. This affected two (Residents #2 and #45) of three residents reviewed for PASARR documents. The facility census was 73 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 09/26/11 with diagnoses including psychotic disorder with delusions, dementia without behaviors, major depressive disorder, and hypertension. Review of the PASARR for Resident #2 dated 10/17/11 revealed it did not include the diagnosis of psychotic disorder recorded on the document. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #2 dated 06/04/24 revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, used a wheelchair to aid in mobility, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Interview on 06/27/24 at 10:25 A.M with Director of Business Development (DOB) #142 confirmed Resident #2's PASARR did not include 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 · D2024-06-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, interviews, and staff interview. the facility failed to ensure care and services were implemented to prevent worsening of contractures. This affected one (Resident #53) of four facility-identified residents with contractures. The facility census was 73 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 02/08/24 with diagnoses including hemiplegia, dysarthria, and respiratory failure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #53 dated 05/13/24revealed the resident had mildly impaired cognition and had functional limitation in range of motion to one side of the upper extremities. Review of the active care plans for Resident #53 revealed there was no plan of care developed for contractures or splint/orthotic use. Review of the active physician's orders for Resident #53 revealed there were no orders for the application or removal of splints/orthotics. Review of the occupational therapy (OT) discharge summary for Resident #53 dated 05/02/24 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.
- Potential for harm · F2021-07-22 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain laundry dryers in a safe manner and prevent a build up of dryer lint in the facility dryers. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 07/22/21 at 11:28 A.M. of Dryer #2 lint screen revealed lint hanging from the lint screen and balled up in the base of the dryer. Interview on 07/22/21 at 11:28 A.M. with Laundry #58 confirmed the lint had built up in the dryer. Laundry #58 stated the dryers were cleaned tree times a day of dryer lint. Observation on 07/22/21 at 11:40 A.M. with Maintenance Director #500 revealed a build up of lint in Dryer #1 with lint collected in soccer size balls under Dryer #1. Interview on 07/22/21 at 11:40 A.M. with the Maintenance Director #500 verified the large amount of lint collected until Dryer #1. He stated the lint trap should be cleaned after every three loads and stated the new linens the facility received gave off more lint than older linens. Review of the laundry staff lint trap signed out…
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 · E2021-07-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 review, review of the facility's policy, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans to address dental care, hospice care, and fluid restrictions. This affected five (#4, #8, #36, #42, and #46) of 19 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 81. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #36 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and personal history of coronavirus (COVID 19). Review of Resident #36's progress note, dated 04/06/21, revealed Resident #36 had seen the dentist briefly, but resident stated he was planning to discharge back to the community, and he wanted to see his own dentist. Review of Resident #36's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/09/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required supervision with personal hygiene. Resident #36 was reported 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 · D2021-07-22 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident was invited to her care plan conference meetings to provide input to her plan of care. This affected one (#32) of three residents reviewed for participation in care planning. The facility census was 81. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, major depressive disorder, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. The resident was her own responsible party. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/07/21, revealed the resident had no impaired cognition for decisions. Record review revealed Resident #32 has not been offered to attend care conference meeting within the past 12 months. Interview on 07/19/21 at 2:10 P.M. with Resident #32 reported not attending a care plan meeting once since she was admitted and nothing after that. Interview on 07/21/21…
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 before2021-07-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a revision was made to a resident' care plan for falls. This affected one (#53) of 19 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 81. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 12/12/16. Diagnoses included arthropathy, muscle weakness, and atrial fibrillation. Review the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/01/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the care plan, dated 12/11/20, revealed the resident was at high risk for falls related to muscle weakness, diabetes, depression, heart disease, anemia, and chronic pain. Interventions included for staff to ensure the resident has slipper socks on when in bed, a floor mat by her bed, and non-skid socks always when not wearing shoes. Observations on 07/20/21 at 2:15 P.M. and on 07/21/21 at 1:15 P.M. revealed Resident #53 was in bed and had no fall mat in place and no non-skid socks on feet Observation on 07/21/21 at 1:24 P.M., revealed Licensed…
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 · D2021-07-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) for for residents who were dependent on staff for their care. This affected three (#16, #39, and #277) of seven residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 81 residents. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #39 revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, multiple sclerosis, aphasia, hallucinations, epilepsy, and dementia. Review of the ADL plan of care, dated 01/09/21, revealed the resident was a two-person physical assistance for bathing. Review of the five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/14/21, revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and required an extensive assistance of one staff person for bathing. Review of the facility's bath record for Resident #39 revealed a shower was given on 07/14/21…
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 · D2021-07-22 · 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, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed ensure resident oxygen tubing was changed per the physician orders. This affected two (#12 and #35) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility identified 15 residents who utilized oxygen. The facility census was 81. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and other asthma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/08/21, revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of the physician's order, dated 06/21/21, revealed Resident #35 was ordered to have his oxygen tubing changed weekly. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated July 2021, revealed Resident #35 was ordered to change his oxygen tubing weekly every night shift, every Thursday. Resident #35 had his oxygen tubing changed on 07/08/21 and 07/15/21…
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 · D2020-03-12 · 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 staff interview and record review, the facility failed to have written authorization to handle a resident's personal funds. This affected one (Resident #8) of five residents reviewed for resident accounts. The facility identified 37 residents with personal funds account. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/11/18. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/27/19, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the undated 'Resident Fund Management' services form on 03/12/20 at 3:16 P.M. revealed there was not a signature for the facility to handle Resident #8's funds. Review of Resident #8's Resident Statement Landscape on 03/12/20 revealed her account was opened on 01/20/20 and had a current balance of $969.04. Interview with Business Office Worker #88 on 03/12/20 at 3:16 P.M. verified Resident #8's account was opened since 01/20/20 and the facility did not have a signed authorization to handle…
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 before2020-03-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facilities policy review, the facility failed to update and revise a resident's care plans. This affected one (Resident #226) of 20 residents reviewed for care plan accuracy. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #226 revealed a re-admission date of 03/05/20. Diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, bipolar, hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Review of the nursing re-admission assessment, dated 03/05/20, revealed Resident #226 had two stage one pressure ulcers to the left and right buttock (intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area), and three unstageable pressure areas (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough or eschar in the wound bed) to the left great toe and to the left and right heels. Review of the wound assessment, dated 03/05/20, revealed Resident #226 had an unstageable area to the left great toe, an unstageable area to her right heel and had a stage two pressure ulcer to his left buttock. There was a reddened area…
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 · D2020-03-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to timely dispose controlled substances after resident's were discharged . This affected two (#230 and #229) of three controlled substance medication administration records reviewed. Facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of Resident #230 medical record, revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses include Alzheimer. Review of the physician orders revealed an order for tramadol. Further review of the record revealed Resident #230 on respite care and discharged to home on [DATE]. Review of discharged Resident #230 medication administration record (dated February 2020) on [DATE], revealed last documented dose of controlled substance on [DATE] at 9:10 A.M., leaving four tablets of tramadol in the blister pack. Review of Resident #229 medical record, revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses include dementia, quadriplegia, cerebral infarction, and encephalopathy. Review of the physician orders…
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 · D2020-03-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to timely respond to monthly pharmacy recommendations. This affected two (#74 and #75) of five residents reviewed for pharmacy recommendations. Facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #74 revealed an admission date of 11/11/19. Diagnoses include type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anemia, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, congestive heart failure and anxiety disorder. Review of the 02/25/20 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed Resident #74 was cognitively intact and required total dependence for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use, She required extensive assistance for personal hygiene, dressing and locomotion off unit. Review of the 12/13/19 Monthly Pharmacy Review revealed Resident #74 was prescribed Promethazine (an antiemetic drug) for treatment of nausea/vomiting. The drug is currently listed on beers list as an inappropriate drug to use in geriatric patients. The form was not seen by the physician until 02/26/20. 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 · C2021-07-22 · tag F0680 — widespreadEnsure the activities program is directed by a qualified professional.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, employee record review, and review of facility's job description, the facility failed to ensure the Activity Director was a qualified activity professional to direct the provision of activities to the residents. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the employee record for the Activity Director (AD) #34 revealed her date of hire was 06/01/20. There were no qualifications of an activity director in her employee record. Interview on 07/22/21 at 08:46 A.M. with AD #34 revealed she did not have her certification as an Activity Director or meet the education requirements to be a certified Activity Director of a nursing facility. AD #34 stated she was currently enrolled in an activity director course and plans to finish the course by October 2021. Interview on 07/22/21 at 02:00 P.M. with the Human Resource Manager (HRM) #16 confirmed the facility does not have a certified Activity Director at the facility. Review of the facility's job description titled Job Description: Activity Director, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CROWN HEALTHCARE GROUP — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CROWN I TBD HOLDCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/09/2021 |
| FEJCC TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
| MDATAS TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
| MRS FAMILY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
| SINGER, MEIR | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
| CAPITAL FINANCE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
| DAUBENMIRE, KEVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
| DONOHOO, JEFFREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/1985 |
| STOUT, GREGORY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/10/2020 |
| WEINTRAUB, MOSHE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/20/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
5 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.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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 365786. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-27, 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.