Hillsboro Health and Rehab LLC

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

51.1% 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 82 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 47.6% 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 42 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 42% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 99 beds and averages 85.7 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 13 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 2.11 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.18 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 1.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.19 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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.

19 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2025-12-29 · tag F0627 — isolated
  Ensure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on closed medical record review, observations, interviews with facility staff and a facility resident, interview with Medical Director #275, interviews with Resident Representatives, interviews with Homeless Shelter employees, interviews with insurance employees, and interview with Ombudsman #250, the facility failed to provide a safe discharge to an appropriate location for Resident #79. On 12/08/25 Resident #79, who had resided in the facility for more than 22 years, was discharged to a homeless shelter with no income and had limited skills, knowledge, and resources required to provide for himself. In addition, the homeless shelter did not have staff with medical knowledge or training and had experienced recent funding cuts which resulted in no programs available to assist the resident in obtaining housing. The homeless shelter only provided food and housing for a maximum of 90 days. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening harm, injuries, and/or negative health outcomes on 12/08/25 when Resident #79, who had diagnoses including type…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Immediate jeopardy · L2023-10-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of open and closed medical records, staff interviews, review of a death certificate, review of water sample testing reports, review of weekly water temperature and chlorine level logs, review of water sample testing kit manufacturer's instructions, review of the facility's water management plan, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, the facility failed to ensure the water system was accurately tested for chlorine levels and maintained in a safe manner which resulted in elevated levels of Legionella bacteria in the facility's water system and exposure to the residents. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening harm, negative health outcomes, and/or death when one resident (#100) was found to have altered mental status and abnormal vital signs on [DATE], was sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation, tested positive for Legionella pneumonia in the hospital on [DATE], and subsequently died on [DATE]. 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · Gcited before2023-10-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure 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

  THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were transferred in a manner to prevent major injury. This affected one resident (#24) out of the three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 86. Actual harm occurred on 10/05/23 at approximately 1:00 P.M. when Resident #24 sustained a fracture of the right distal tibia during a staff assisted transfer from the resident's room to the shower room in a shower chair which did not have leg and foot support. Findings include: Record review for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 02/28/20 and diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right side, spastic hemiplegia affecting the right side, anxiety disorder, dementia, unspecified visual loss, age-related nuclear cataract, and chronic pain. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/13/23, revealed Resident #24 had severely…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-29 · tag F0628 — isolated
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on closed record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide notice of discharge timely and appropriately. This affected one resident (#79) out of the four residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 74.Findings include:Closed record review for Resident #79 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in 05/2003 and had diagnoses which included type one diabetes mellitus, celiac disease, hypokalemia, degenerative disease of the nervous system, and long-term use of insulin.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/13/25, revealed the resident was cognitively intact.Further record review for Resident #79 revealed no discharge notice had been provided to the resident or Ombudsman prior to the resident being discharged from the facility on 12/08/25.Interview on 12/11/25 at 1:59 P.M. with the Administrator and Social Service Director #180 confirmed no discharge notice had been provided to Resident #79 as he was agreeable to go. They confirmed no discharge notice had been made to the Ombudsman as of the present date 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-08-13 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespread
  Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to utilize the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least eight hours a day, seven days a week as required. This had the potential to affect all 74 residents residing at the facility. The facility census was 74.Findings Include:Review of facility staff records titled Daily Staffing dated 08/06/2025 through 08/13/2025, revealed that no RN was was staffed at the facility on 08/08/2025, 08/09/2025, 08/10/2025 and 08/13/2025.Interview with Director of Nursing and Administrator on 08/13/2025 confirmed that no RN was scheduled or worked on those days. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number 258139 Complaint Number 2574281.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-05 · tag F0569 — isolated
  Notify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
  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, personal funds review, and staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to return and complete final accounting of resident funds in a timely manner after a resident death. This affected one (#281) of one residents reviewed for discharged resident funds. The census was 78. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #281 revealed an admission date of [DATE] and a discharge date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral atherosclerosis, dementia, embolism, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #281 was assessed with cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers and mobility. Review of the resident funds authorization form dated [DATE] revealed Resident #281 opened a resident fund account at the facility. Review of the resident fund statement dated [DATE] revealed Resident #281's account was closed 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-05 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) assessments were completed and failed to follow up on PASARR level II determinations. This affected two (#24 and #32) of two resident reviewed for PASARR assessments. The census was 78. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 05/03/22. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of one to two staff members for transfers and mobility. Review of the medical record found no evidence of Resident #24 having any PASARR assessment completed. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 11/03/18. Diagnoses included paranoid…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0685 — isolated
  Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 observation, staff and resident interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received hearing supports and devices in a timely manner. This affected one (#2) of one residents reviewed for hearing ancillary services. The census was 78. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #2 revealed a re-admission date of 08/29/23. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, vascular dementia, schizophrenia unspecified. Review of an audiology evaluation dated 10/14/22 revealed Resident #2 was seen for a hearing test on 07/11/22 in which bilateral hearing loss was found. The resident voiced interest in hearing aides at that time. Further review of the report revealed facility staff agreed hearing aides were appropriate for the resident and bilateral earmold impressions were completed. The hearing test found severe to profound mixed hearing loss in the right ear and a moderately…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
  Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review staff interview, and review of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medication information, the facility failed to provide an appropriate diagnosis for the use of psychotropic medications. This affected one (#22) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 78. Findings include: Record review of Resident #22 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia, urinary tract infection, hypertension, depression, anxiety, diabetes mellitus type II, anemia, and insomnia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 09/12/23 revealed Resident #22 was assessed with severe cognitive impairment. Review of current physician orders revealed Resident #22 received the anticonvulsant and mood stabilizer Depakote Sprinkles 125 milligrams (mg), one capsule by mouth every eight hours related to unspecified dementia, the antipsychotic medication Seroquel 25 mg, one tablet by mouth daily…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0800 — isolated
  Provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary 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 observation, medical record review, staff and resident interviews, review of meal tickets, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident food preferences were honored. This affected two (#6 and #18) of two residents reviewed for food preferences. The census was 78. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date of 04/13/19. Diagnoses included dementia, asthma, cerebral infarct, pain syndrome, and COVID-19. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was cognitively impaired and was totally dependent for transfers. Review of the plan of care dated 08/10/23 revealed Resident #6 was at nutritional and/or dehydration risk with interventions to provide diet preferences and substitutes as ordered. Review of Resident #6's meal ticket dated 09/26/23 revealed the resident dislike of cheese. Observation on 09/26/23 from 4:50 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. revealed Resident #6 had No cheese printed on her meal ticket…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-06-09 · tag F0569 — pattern
  Notify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on state/federal economic stimulus and Medicaid guidelines, resident financial record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's financial accounts were maintained within the appropriate limits. This affected twelve residents (Residents #28, #35, #40, #43, #50, #59, #64, #68, #71, #74, #75 and #79) of thirty-eight resident financial records reviewed. The facility census was 86. Findings include: Review of the current state Medicaid resident trust guidelines revealed each resident that utilizes Medicaid insurance may not keep more than $2,000 in a trust account. Also, the same guidelines confirmed that the COVID-19 stimulus checks (three total) do not count as monthly income; so it would not affect a resident's medical coverage. But, a resident who utilizes Medicaid insurance, and received stimulus payment(s), they have 12 months to spend that money from the time they receive it. Review of the federal COVID-19 stimulus documentation revealed three different economic impact payments made to eligible persons. The following…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-06-09 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to update a resident's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) when a significant change occurred or was discovered. This affected two (Resident #4 and #33) of two residents reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 86. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included dementia, major depressive disorder, psychosis, delusional disorder, anxiety disorder, and unspecified behavioral syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors. Review of his Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/22/22, revealed Resident #4 had a mild cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #4's PASARR screening document, dated 09/13/17, revealed under section C, Medical Diagnosis, it indicated Resident #4 did not have a diagnosis of dementia. Also under section C, the only mental health diagnosis indicated was mood disorder.…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-06-09 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide 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 observations, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pressure relieving devices to prevent new or worsening pressure ulcers were in place as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #11) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. This facility identified nine residents residing in the facility who had pressure ulcers. The facility census was 86. Findings include: Record review for Resident #11 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included pressure ulcer of the left heel, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, hemiplegia and hemiparalysis affecting the left side, and cerebral infarction. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/09/22, revealed Resident #11 had severely impaired cognition. Resident #11 required extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility and transfers. Resident #11 had one unstageable pressure ulcer (slough and/or eschar: known but not stageable due to coverage…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

$119,308 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

• $119,308 — penalty dated 2023-10-05
• Medicare payment denial — starting 2023-10-31 for 38 days

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to RHG HEALTHCARE SERVICES — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.

8 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 $480K 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