Vancrest Health Care Ctr Of Ho
600 Joe E Brown Road, Holgate, OH 43527 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (419) 264-0700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.9% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 11.1% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better 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 | 3.8% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.5% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 35.9% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.0% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.3% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.3% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 50.1% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.73 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.43 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 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.
45.6% 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 43 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 79.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 38 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 45.6%CMS range 33.2–60.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 6.3–14.4 | 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 | 79.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 79.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.9%CMS range 3.2–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 60 beds and averages 53.7 residents a day — about 90% 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 3.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the snack/nourishment refrigerator for the 300 Hall and 400 Hall nurses' stations was maintained with properly dated and labeled food and beverage items to prevent the potential for foodborne illness. The facility identified thirty-one residents (#1, #4, #9, #14, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #23, #24, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #36, #39, #40, #42, #44, #46, #48, #50, #55, #57, #59, and #67) who receive nourishments from the refrigerator. The facility census was 56.Findings include:Observation on 02/18/26 at 1:58 P.M. of the 300 Hall and 400 Hall nurses' station refrigeration unit revealed salami and pepperoni stored in unlabeled and undated plastic bags with a visible white film and and mold like substance observed. Further observation revealed outdated yogurt cups; expired fruit cups; expired pudding cups; Mexican food in a leftover container was uncovered and not dated; leftover containers not labeled with a resident name or date; one glass of orange juice was left open 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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, observation, medical record review, the review of dietary meal ticket, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to honor residents' food preferences. This affected one (#49) of two residents reviewed for preferences. The facility census was 56. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/10/25. Diagnoses included fracture of superior rim of left pubis, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, chronic atrial fibrillation, unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/12/25, revealed Resident #49 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Interview with Resident #49 on 02/17/26 at 8:30 A.M. revealed she did not like sausage and the facility kept serving her sausage. Concurrent observation of Resident #49's breakfast meal tray revealed she was served sausage with her breakfast. Resident #49 stated the facility 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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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, resident interview, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure enteral tube feedings were correctly labeled and dated. This affected one (#20) of one resident reviewed for enteral tube feedings. The facility census was 56.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed he was admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) following a stroke, right-sided paralysis, aphasia (difficulty speaking), intracerebral hemorrhage, seizures, neurogenic bladder, and protein-calorie malnutrition.Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/11/25, revealed Resident #20 was cognitively intact and did not display any behaviors at the time of the assessment. Resident #20 received 51% or more of his nutrition from a feeding tube.Review of the physician orders for Resident #20 revealed an order dated 02/09/26 for a puree diet and an order dated 02/11/26 for Jevity 1.5 (nutritional formula) to be…
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 · D2026-02-19 · 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, staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to obtain an order for oxygen therapy. This affected one (#64) of one resident reviewed for oxygen therapy. The facility identified nine residents (#25, #27, #41, #43, #47, #51, #53, #55, and #64) who received oxygen therapy. The facility census was 56.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #64 revealed an admission date of 02/16/26 with admitting diagnoses of fall with displaced rib fractures of ribs seven through eleven.Review of the hospital Community Referral Form (CRF) dated 02/16/26 for Resident #64 revealed no orders for supplemental oxygen therapy.Review of the admission physician orders for Resident #64 revealed no orders for oxygen therapy.Observation on 02/17/26 at 11:00 A.M. of Resident #64 revealed the resident was resting in bed with oxygen in place and running at three l/m via nasal cannula (NC).Interview on 02/17/26 at 1:54 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #230 verified Resident #64 received oxygen therapy at three liters…
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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE) upon entry into a contact precautions room. This affected two (#10 and #47) of two residents reviewed for transmission-based precautions (TBP). The facility census was 56.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included sepsis of unspecified organism, muscle weakness, unsteadiness of feet, hypomagnesium, urinary tract infection (UTI), and unspecified dementia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive deficits. Resident #10 required substantial/maximum assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 02/16/26 contact precautions for urine. Observation on 02/17/26 at 9:05…
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 · D2024-10-17 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure treatments were implemented timely for pressure ulcers. This affected one (#46) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction due to thrombosis of left middle cerebral artery, hemiplegia right dominant side, spinal stenosis, major depressive disorder recurrent, pressure ulcer of the right heel, gastrostomy status, acute cystitis without hematuria, hyperlipidemia, and atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired, dependent for all care, and had a stage three pressure ulcer. Review of the admission nursing assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 readmitted to the facility after a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-17 · 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 medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure communication with dialysis treatment center and and failed to provide ongoing monitoring/assessment of the dialysis access site. This affected one (#150) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #150 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included abscess of liver, acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, chronic kidney disease stage 3, vascular dementia, major depressive disorder, type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, and hyperlipidemia. Review of physician orders dated 10/07/24 revealed Resident #150 received outpatient dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. Review of the most recent care plan dated 10/16/24 revealed Resident #150 was care planned for dialysis with interventions. None of the interventions included monitoring of the dialysis access site. Interview on 10/16/24 at 11:12 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 · E2023-09-21 · tag F0800 — patternProvide 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, staff interview, and review of the menu spreadsheet, review of recipe, review of resident diet list, the facility failed to ensure pureed protein was prepared following the recipe to ensure adequate protein was provided. This affected one (#19) of one resident identified on a pureed diet. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure appropriate scoop sizes were used to serve protein portions to Resident #19 on a pureed diet, and to 11 (#2, #4, #9, #17, #23, #24, #26, #35, #36, #38, and #40) residents identified on a mechanical soft diet. The facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/02/19. Diagnoses included dementia with psychotic disturbance and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral vascular accident. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 had a low cognitive function. Review of a physician order dated 12/20/21 revealed Resident #19 received a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, review of resident diet list, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was practiced during the preparation of mechanical soft food. This had the potential to affect 11 residents (#2, #4, #9, #17, #23, #24, #26, #35, #36, #38, and #40) identified on a mechanical soft diet. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Observations on 09/20/23 beginning at 11:03 A.M., revealed [NAME] #301 wearing gloves and handling tongs to pick up patties of veal parmesan to prepare mechanical soft textured food. Interview at that time with [NAME] #301 stated there were 11 residents on a mechanical soft diet, and she prepared the patties of veal parmesan in batches to not overload the food processor. Continued observation revealed [NAME] #301 placing four patties in the food processor, closing the lid, pressing the start button, pressing the stop button, opening the lid, using a spatula lying on the countertop to push the food lower into the food processor, picking up a carafe of hot water and pouring the water into the food processor,…
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 · D2023-09-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for activities of daily living were provided with nail care. This affected three (#4, 19 and #26) of three residents reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living. The facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/03/22, with diagnosis including dementia with mood disturbance, cerebral infarction, psychosis, and macular degeneration. Review of Resident #4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a cognitive deficit and required extensive assistance for personal hygiene. Review of Resident #4's most recent care plan revealed the resident had an activity of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to decreased strength and endurance, impaired cognition related to dementia. Interventions were to provide limited…
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 · D2023-09-21 · 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 staff interview, record review, and review of the facility's Hospice Agreement, the facility failed to ensure coordination of care between the facility and Hospice provider. This affected one (#43) of one resident reviewed for Hospice care. The facility identified one resident in the facility was under Hospice care. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 01/04/23, with diagnoses of dementia, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis. Review of the modified quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 had impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, dressing, was totally dependent on two people for transfers, and required extensive assistance of one person for eating. Review of a physician order dated 05/26/23 revealed Resident #43 was admitted to hospice. Review of the facility's current care plan for Resident #43 revealed she received Hospice services.…
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 · D2023-09-21 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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 record review, resident interview, staff interview, Certified Nurse Practitioner interview, and review of the policy, the facility failed to ensure behavior interventions of non pharmacological interventions were implemented prior to increasing antipsychotic medication doses. This affected one (#18) of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 05/03/19, with diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and traumatic brain injury. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had intact cognition and required supervision with one person assistance for transfers and locomotion. Further review revealed no physical or verbal behaviors towards others or not toward others, no rejection of care. Review of the behavior care plan initiated 05/19/18 revealed Resident #18 had a traumatic brain injury, schizoaffective disorder, impaired…
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 VANCREST HEALTH CARE CENTERS — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAGLEY, JON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | 25% | since 05/29/2002 |
| MCCLEERY, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | 10% | since 05/29/2002 |
| WHITE, CAROL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 05/29/2002 |
| WHITE, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | 35% | since 05/29/2002 |
| WHITE, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 05/29/2002 |
| GWIN, HEATHER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/25/2017 |
| NIESE, LEAH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/30/2003 |
| VANCREST MANAGEMENT CORP. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/24/2003 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $603K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 366255. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-19, 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.