Hamilton Respiratory and Nursing Center
2923 Hamilton Mason Road, Hamilton, OH 45011 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 80 certified beds · (513) 863-0360 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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 its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0569)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — 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 payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (73%) 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 3.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 37.2% | 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 | 1.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.1% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.0% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.5% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.1% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 5.5–14.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 80 beds and averages 74.0 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.93 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 3.35 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 73% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
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.
35 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to timely complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. This affected four (Residents #2, #11, #26, #39) of 18 residents sampled. The facility census was 75 residents.Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #26 revealed an admission date of 09/04/24 with diagnoses including mood disorder and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15 dated 03/12/26 revealed the MDS was not completed until 04/15/26. Interview on 04/16/26 at 1:45 P.M. with MDS Nurse #284 verified Resident #26's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] was not completed within the required timeframe. 2.Review of the medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 10/29/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, depression, and congestive heart failure. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #39 dated 03/19/26 revealed the MDS was not completed 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 · D2026-04-20 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure written authorization to manage resident funds. This affected one (Resident #55) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 75 residents.Findings include: Review of the funds record for Resident #55 revealed there was no authorization by the resident or his representative. Interview on 04/16/26 at 3:12 P.M. with Business Office Coordinator (BOC) #237 confirmed the facility was managing Resident #55's funds, but the facility had not obtained written authorization to manage funds for the resident from the resident nor from the resident's representative. Review of the facility policy titled Resident Funds revised December 2009 revealed the facility would inform residents of the procedures for managing funds and residents were not obligated to deposit their funds with the facility.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-20 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to timely disburse funds following resident death. This affected one (Resident #94) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 75 residents.Findings include: Review of the funds record for Resident #94 revealed the resident expired in July of 2025 and his funds had not yet been disbursed to the resident's representative. Interview on [DATE] at 3:12 P.M. with Business Office Coordinator (BOC) #237 confirmed Resident #94 expired in [DATE] and the facility had not yet disbursed the funds remaining in the resident's account to the resident's family.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-20 · 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 review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were completed quarterly. This affected two (Residents #8 and #11) of 18 sampled residents. The facility census was 75 residents. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 12/31/25 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease (ESRD), hypertension, and anemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #8 dated 01/07/26 revealed the resident had intact cognition. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed there was no documentation of care conferences being completed for the resident. Interview on 04/16/26 at 2:31 P.M. with Social Services Director (SSD) #297 verified the facility had not held a care conference with Resident #8. 2.Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 07/10/23 with diagnoses including borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, and type one diabetes mellitus. Review of the MDS assessment for Resident #11 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-20 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to implement timely interventions to monitor for and prevent unplanned weight loss. This affected one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 75 residents. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 02/28/23 with diagnoses including type twp diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, and chronic pancreatitis. Review of the weight record for Resident #2 dated 09/05/25 revealed the resident weighed 190.8 pounds (lbs.) Review of the weight record for Resident #2 dated 10/16/25 revealed the resident weighed 176 lbs. which was a 7.76 percent (%) weight loss in under 30 days. Review of the nutritional progress note for Resident #2 dated 10/16/25 at 3:42 P.M. revealed the dietitian recommended the staff to obtain a re-weight of the resident to rule out discrepancies with the scales. Review of the weight record for Resident #2 dated 10/16/25 revealed there was no re-weight recorded. 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 · D2026-04-20 · 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
Based on review of the medical record, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene during catheter care and failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented for a dialysis resident. This affected two (Resident #8 and #13) of 18 residents sampled. The facility census was 75 residents. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 12/31/25 with diagnoses included end stage renal disease (ESRD), hypertension, and anemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #8 dated 01/07/26 revealed the resident had intact cognition and required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs.) Review of the care plan for Resident #8 dated 01/20/26 revealed the resident received hemodialysis three times weekly. Observation on 04/15/26 at 11:11 A.M. revealed Resident #8 did not have an enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) sign or personal protective equipment (PPE) available for patient care. Interview on 04/15/26 at 11:13 A.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 before2026-02-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the appropriate level of resident supervision during mechanical lift transfers. This affected one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 76 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #31 revealed an admission date of 08/06/25 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and respiratory failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #31 dated 11/13/25 revealed the resident was dependent on staff to transfer between surfaces.Review of the nurse progress note for Resident #31 dated 12/03/25 at 6:00 P.M. revealing the resident slid out of a mechanical lift (Hoyer) during transfer. Staff assessed Resident #31 and the resident was transferred to the emergency room for evaluation.Review of a hospital note for Resident #31 dated 12/03/25 revealed the resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. This affected two (Residents #65 and #66) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 76 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #65 revealed an admission date of 04/02/19 with diagnoses including seizure disorder, disorganized schizophrenia, and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #65 dated 11/02/25 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment.Review of the medication error report for Resident #65 dated 11/14/25 revealed on 11/14/25 at approximately 8:30 P.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)#188 administered Ativan one milligram (mg), Metformin 500 mg, and Remeron 7.5 mg to Resident #65. Resident #65 did not have orders for these medications. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed an admission date of 07/18/25 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus type two, and schizoaffective…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-20 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 closed medical record review, review of facility-initiated discharge notices, review of the discharge appeal hearing decision, staff interview, guardian interview, Hospital Social Worker (HSW) interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an appropriate resident discharge. This affected one resident (#8601) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 61. Findings include: Review of Resident #8601's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/15/15. Diagnoses included Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease with early onset, severe protein-calorie malnutrition and repeated falls. Further review revealed Resident #8601 was discharged on 08/28/24. Review of physician orders from orders from 08/01/24 to 09/19/24 revealed no discharge order for Resident #8601. Further review revealed a physician order, dated 08/28/24, to send Resident #8601 to the Emergency Department (ED) for further psychological evaluation, one time only, for further evaluation 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 · D2024-09-20 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 closed medical record review, review of facility-initiated discharge notices, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure discharge notices were accurately completed. This affected one resident (#8601) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 61. Findings include: Review of Resident #8601's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/15/15. Diagnoses included Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease with early onset, severe protein-calorie malnutrition and repeated falls. The resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the facility initiated 30-day discharge notice, dated 08/23/24, revealed a discharge notice was issued to Resident #8601 and his guardian. Appropriate notification was made to the Ombudsman and required state agencies. Further review of the discharge notice revealed the discharge was effective 09/21/24 and a specified nursing facility was identified as the discharge location for Resident #8601. Review of 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.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-20 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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 closed medical record review, review of facility-initiated discharge notices, review of the discharge appeal hearing decision, staff interview, guardian interview and Hospital Social Worker (HSW) interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was readmitted to the facility upon discharge from the hospital. This affected one resident (#8601) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 61. Findings include: Review of Resident #8601's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/15/15. Diagnoses included Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease with early onset, severe protein-calorie malnutrition and repeated falls. Further review revealed Resident #8601 was transferred to the hospital and discharged on 08/28/24. Review of physician orders from orders from 08/01/24 to 09/19/24 revealed no discharge order for Resident #8601. Further review revealed a physician order, dated 08/28/24, to send Resident #8601 to the Emergency Department (ED) for further psychological evaluation,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician as ordered. This affected one (#28) resident of three reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 73. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 10/29/23. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with anxiety, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe protein calorie malnutrition, heart failure, and depression. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #28 revealed the resident was assessed with an intact cognition. Resident #28 required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, toileting and eating. Resident #28 weight was documented as 186 pounds. Review of the plan of care for Resident #28 dated 11/03/23 revealed the resident was at risk for malnutrition and dehydration related to chronic disease, advanced age, and potential for weight and intake decline related to disease progression.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow physicians orders for obtaining weights. This affected one (#28) resident of three reviewed for weight monitoring. The facility census was 73. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 10/29/23. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with anxiety, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe protein calorie malnutrition, heart failure, and depression. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #28 revealed the resident was assessed with an intact cognition. Resident #28 required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, toileting and eating. Resident #28 weight was documented as 186 pounds. Review of the plan of care for Resident #28 dated 11/03/23 revealed the resident was at risk for malnutrition and dehydration related to chronic disease, advanced age, and potential for weight and intake decline related to disease progression.…
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 · F2023-05-10 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — widespreadEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure substitutions were available for each resident who would like a different choice of foods during meal service. This had the potential to affect all residents who receive meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Interview on 05/07/23 at 2:44 P.M., Resident #02 said they were not provided menus or substitutions for the meals served. Interview on 05/08/23 at 9:02 A.M., Resident #10 said they were not provided menus or substitutions for the meals served. Interview on 05/09/23 at 8:01 A.M., Resident #20 said they were not provided menus or substitutions for the meals served. Interview on 05/10/23 at 9:50 A.M., Resident #28 said they were not provided menus or substitutions for the meals served. Interview on 05/08/23 at 1:39 P.M., and on 05/09/23 at 11:02 A.M., with dietary staff #39 and #67 stated the menus were not offered to residents and substitutions were not offered unless brought up by the residents' and the substitutions were not always available due 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 · E2023-05-10 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff and resident interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents had access to menus and substitutions were available. This affected eight residents (#02, #10, #20, #28, 26, #36, #59 and #69) out of eight residents reviewed for menus and substitutions. The facility also failed to ensure double portions were served for one resident (#59) of one resident reviewed for double portions for meals. The facility census was 70. 1. Medical record review for Resident #26 revealed an admission date of 05/14/14. Medical diagnoses included traumatic brain dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease, renal insufficiency, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 was cognitively intact. He was independent for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use and eating. Interview and observation with Resident #26 on 05/07/23 at 3:39 P.M. revealed he didn't receive a menu and wasn't able to get a substitution if he didn't like…
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 · D2023-05-10 · 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 observation, interview, medical record review, review of an invoice and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected two residents (#05 and #59) of 24 residents sampled for dignified care. The facility census was 70. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #05 revealed an admission date of 08/22/22. Diagnoses included acute osteomyelitis. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #05 had intact cognition, had no behaviors, did not reject care, and did not wander. Resident #05 required supervision assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) care. Review of an invoice dated 05/03/23 revealed [NAME] Plumbing and Sewer provided plumbing services to the facility for concerns with water pressure. During an interview on 05/07/23 at 10:54 A.M., Resident #05 stated last week, unsure of exact date, a plumber walked into her room without her permission to look at something…
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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 staff and resident interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were equipped to maintain complete privacy. This affected one resident (#05) of 24 residents screened for privacy. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #05 revealed an admission date of 08/22/22. Diagnoses included acute osteomyelitis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #05 had intact cognition, had no behaviors, did not reject care, and did not wander. Resident #05 required supervision assistance for activities of daily living. During an interview on 05/07/2023 at 10:57 A.M. Resident #05 stated her room di not allow her to maintain privacy because her privacy curtain was broken and did not provide privacy all the way around her living area. During an observation and interview on 05/10/2023 at 9:42 A.M. Housekeeper #85 verified the privacy curtain in Resident #05's room was missing a panel and could…
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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, staff and resident interview, observation, review of the activity calender, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure activities of resident interests were provided on the weekends. This affected two residents (#26 and #36) of four residents reviewed for activities. The census was 70. Findings included: 1. Medical record review for Resident #26 revealed an admission date of 05/14/14. Diagnoses included traumatic brain dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease, renal insufficiency, and dementia. Review of the activity evaluation dated 01/04/23 for Resident #26 revealed it was very important to keep up with the news, go outside for fresh air, and have books and magazines. The assessment documented it was somewhat important to listen to music, to do his favorite activities, and do activities with groups of people. Review of the activity progress notes from 02/08/23 to 05/07/23 revealed there wasn't any refusals for activities. Review of activity documentation from 04/08/23 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 before2023-05-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received timely medical treatment. This affected one resident (#15) of two residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. The facility census was 70. Findings included: Medical record review for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 06/14/22. Diagnoses included coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes and renal insufficiency. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 was cognitively intact. She was independent for bed mobility, transfers, eating and toilet use. She was always continent of bowel and bladder. Review of the physician orders dated 02/13//23 revealed to give Imodium two milligram (mg) one tablet every six hours as needed for diarrhea. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Imodium, revealed from 05/01/23 through 05/08/23 the resident had not been given Imodium for diarrhea. Interview with Resident #15 on…
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 · D2023-05-10 · 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 observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had clean pressure ulcer reducing devices to promote healing and prevent infection. This affected one resident (#03) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 70. Findings included: Medical record review for Resident #03 revealed an admission date of 03/13/12. Diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction, dementia, neurogenic bladder, and obstructive uropathy. Review of the care plan dated 02/09/23 for Resident #03 revealed to float heels off the bed as tolerated. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #03 had moderately impaired cognition, the resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, total dependence for bed transfers, eating and toilet use. Observation during a dressing change to the right heel of Resident #03 on 05/08/23 at 1:13 P.M. revealed his heel boots were interchangeable with the right and left foot. When 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 · D2023-05-10 · 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
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident oxygen tubing and nebulizers were labeled and changed timely. This affected one resident (#13) of two residents sampled for respiratory care. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 05/24/22. Diagnoses included chronic diastolic heart failure, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the care plan dated 06/07/2022 revealed Resident #13 had a potential for difficulty breathing and risk for respiratory complications related to diagnoses of Emphysema/COPD. Interventions included observe/report symptoms of difficulty breathing or respiratory infection and administer medications/treatments as ordered. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #13 had physician orders for Ipatropium-albuterol 0.5-2.5 mg solution (3 mg/ml) one vial inhaled orally every four hours, oxygen continuous at three liters per minute per nasal cannula 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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents with a dialysis access site were monitored. This affected two residents (#23 and #66) of two residents reviewed for dialysis care. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 04/02/22. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, hypertensive heart disease, and stage V chronic kidney disease. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors, did not reject care, and did not wander. Review of the care plan dated 04/03/22 revealed Resident #23 was at risk for complications related to dialysis and end stage renal disease. Interventions included upon return from the dialysis center observe the resident's access site, obtain vital signs, and document findings in the medical record. Report abnormal findings to the physician. 2. Review of the medical…
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 · D2023-05-10 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered to residents as ordered. This affected two residents (#35 and #42) of four residents sampled for medication administration. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 05/27/22. Diagnoses included dementia, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the physician orders revealed Resident #35 for routine medications scheduled for administration at 8:00 A.M. included Ativan (antianxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily, benztropine (anticholinergic medication) one mg by mouth twice daily, divalproex (anticonvulsant medication) sodium 500 mg delayed release by mouth twice daily, haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) five mg by mouth once daily, and hydroxyzine (antihistamine) 50 mg by mouth twice daily. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 09/01/22. Diagnoses included dementia and type II…
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 before2023-05-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly. This affected two residents (#35 and #42) of four residents sampled for medication administration. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 05/27/22. Diagnoses included dementia, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the physician orders revealed Resident #35 for routine medications scheduled for administration at 8:00 A.M. included Ativan (antianxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily, benztropine (anticholinergic medication) one mg by mouth twice daily, divalproex (anticonvulsant medication) sodium 500 mg delayed release by mouth twice daily, haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) five mg by mouth once daily, and hydroxyzine (antihistamine) 50 mg by mouth twice daily. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 09/01/22. Diagnoses included dementia and type II diabetes. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-11-26 · 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 observation, staff interview, review of manufacturer's instructions and review of facility policy, the facility failed to properly store resident medications and discard expired medications. This had the potential to affect all 24 of the resident residing on the 100 Hall with the exception of Resident #26 whom the facility identified as having a contraindication to receiving a tuberculin testing solution injection, eleven facility identified residents residing on the 100 hall with orders for Melatonin, (Residents #21, #26, #31, #49, #53, #57, #62, #72, #173, #174, #175), seven facility-identified residents residing on the 100 hall who are diabetic (Residents #6, #11, #37, #52, #53, #72, #173), and two facility-identified residents residing on the 100 hall with orders for Phenergan (Residents #52, #175). The census was 75. Findings include: Observation of 100 Hall medication cart on 11/25/19 at 1:29 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #24 revealed the cart contained a house stock bottle of Melatonin with a manufacturer's expiration date of 10/2019. Observation of the 100 Hall…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that resident's advanced directives specifically regarding the residents elected code status was consistent and matched in the medical record. This affected three (#5, #7, #66) of 18 residents sampled. The census was 75. Findings include: 1. Review of record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Review of physician orders for November 2019 Resident #5 revealed resident had chosen full code as her code status. Review of [NAME] for Resident #5 revealed it was blank in the section for resident code status. 2. Review of record revealed Resident #7 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain and other chronic pain. Review of physician orders for November 2019 Resident #7 revealed resident had a current do not resuscitate (DNR) order in place. Review of [NAME] for Resident #7 revealed resident was noted to be full code status. 3. Review of record for Resident #66 revealed…
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 before2019-11-26 · 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the attending physician of elevated resident blood sugars. This affected one (#27) of six residents reviewed for medications. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record for Resident #27 revealed as admission date of 05/01/17 with a diagnosis of diabetes. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #27 revealed resident had mild cognitive impairment and required supervision with activities of daily living. Review of November 2019 physician orders for Resident #27 revealed an order for insulin be administered per a sliding scale and that if blood sugar was above 450 to administer 12 units of insulin and then to recheck the blood sugar in one hour and notify the physician. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for November 2019 for Resident #27 revealed the resident's blood sugar (BS) was over 450 on the following dates/times: 11/01/19 at 3:30 P.M.- BS was 492, 11/11/19 at 630 A.M.-BS was 552,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · 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 medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike dining experience for residents residing on the female secured unit. This affected two (#58 and #71) of five residents observed for dining on the unit. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record for Resident #58 revealed resident was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #58 dated 10/03/19 revealed resident was cognitively impaired and required supervision with eating. Review of record for Resident #71 revealed resident was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of MDS for Resident #71 dated 11/07/19 revealed resident was cognitively impaired and required limited assistance of one staff with eating. Review of care plans for Resident #58 and Resident #71 revealed neither resident was care planned…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · 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 facility self-reported incidents (SRI's), resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of possible resident to resident physical abuse to the state agency. This affected one (#5) of three residents reviewed for abuse concerns. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #5 revealed resident was cognitively intact and required limited assistance with activities of daily living. Review of record for Resident #73 revealed resident had a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance and was discharged from the facility on 10/08/19. Review of nurse progress note dated 10/02/19 for Resident #73 revealed the resident swatted Resident #5 on her bottom and that Resident #5 was very upset and stated the other resident's action had startled her. Review of nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate 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 medical record review, resident and staff interview and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to accurately assess resident dental status. This affected one (#66) of three residents reviewed for dental concerns. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record for Resident #66 revealed an admission date of 04/11/14 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #66 dated 10/01/19 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the comprehensive MDS for Resident #66 dated 10/30/19 section V, care area assessment worksheet for dental care revealed the resident had no natural teeth and was at risk for chewing issues and mouth pain related to denture use, that resident needs assistance with denture care, and that a care plan would be developed to avoid complications and minimize risks related to denture use. Review of care plan for Resident…
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 before2019-11-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to update resident care plans regarding dental status. This affected one (#66) of three residents reviewed for dental concerns. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record for Resident #66 revealed an admission date of 04/11/14 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #66 dated 10/01/19 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the comprehensive MDS for Resident #66 dated 10/30/19 section V, care area assessment worksheet for dental care revealed the resident had no natural teeth and was at risk for chewing issues and mouth pain related to denture use, that resident needs assistance with denture care, and that a care plan would be developed to avoid complications and minimize risks related to denture use. Review of care plan for Resident #66 dated 11/12/19 revealed resident had a self…
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 before2019-11-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, medical record review, and staff and family interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented a wheelchair cushion used as a positioning device and a finger splint ordered to treat a fractured finger. This affected one (#223) of one residents reviewed for position/mobility during the annual survey. The facility census was 75. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #223 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, rheumatoid arthritis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and atrophy. Review of the five-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #223 severely cognitively impaired with delirium inattention and disorganized thinking behaviors noted continuously. Review of Section G- Functional Status revealed the resident required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, toileting, personal hygiene, supervision with two-person…
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 before2019-11-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention measures were in place in accordance with the resident's care plan. This affected one (#7) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record revealed Resident #7 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain and other chronic pain. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #7 dated 11/17/19 revealed resident had cognitive impairment and required limited assistance with activities of daily living. Review of fall risk assessment for Resident #7 dated 09/18/19 revealed resident was at risk for falls. Review of care plan for Resident #7 dated 09/18/19 revealed resident was at risk for falls or fall related injury related to impaired mobility, muscle weakness, and impaired cognition. Interventions included the following: assess the risk level for falls on admission and as needed, encourage…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to assess and manage resident pain. This affected one (#7) of 18 residents sampled. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record revealed Resident #7 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain and other chronic pain. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #7 dated 11/17/19 revealed resident had cognitive impairment, required limited assistance with activities of daily living, and was coded as negative for receiving pain medications, negative as receiving non-pharmacological interventions for pain, and rated her pain during the assessment window as a seven on a scale of zero to 10 with 10 being the worst pain. Review of November 2019 physician orders for Resident #7 revealed no orders for pain medication. Review of care plan for Resident #7 dated 11/19/19 revealed resident was at risk for pain related to decreased mobility, diagnoses of chronic pain and generalized pain…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to adequately monitor resident blood sugar per the physician's order related to insulin administration. This affected one (#27) of six residents reviewed for medications. The census was 75. Findings include: Review of record for Resident #27 revealed as admission date of 05/01/17 with a diagnosis of diabetes. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #27 revealed resident had mild cognitive impairment and required supervision with activities of daily living. Review of November 2019 physician orders for Resident #27 revealed an order for insulin be administered per a sliding scale and that if blood sugar was above 450 to administer 12 units of insulin and then to recheck the blood sugar in one hour and notify the physician. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for November 2019 for Resident #27 revealed the resident's blood sugar (BS) was over 450 on the following dates/times: 11/01/19 at 3:30 P.M.- BS was…
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 CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE — 81 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 3.2 | -2.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 80 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 80; lowest-rated first.
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAUREL OHIO OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/01/2018 |
| LAUREL HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/30/2018 |
| KHAN, ANIS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2018 |
| QAZI, MOHAMMAD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2018 |
| LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2025 |
| WOODWARD, CHRISTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| STOBB, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $344K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365558. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-20, 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.