No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

The Meadows At Osborn Park

3916 Perkins Ave, Huron, OH 44839 · Government - County · 130 certified beds · (419) 627-8733 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (419) 627-8733 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
5420 Milan Rd · (419) 554-5052 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
5500 Milan Rd Ste 200 · (419) 627-8283 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Meijer1.7 mi
4702 Milan Rd · (419) 627-7900 · Call to confirm hours
Park
3910 Perkins Ave · (419) 625-7783 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
3018 Hinde Ave · (419) 624-0981

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 3 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 4 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased8.7%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.6%6.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.2%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.0%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.1%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.0%6.1%16.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.5%25.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.6%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control15.4%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table26.5%8.8%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine94.1%75.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission17.4%24.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.8%12.9%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.771.731.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.061.801.80better

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.

41.8% 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 65 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
10.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 10.2% 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 49 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 48% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF41.8%CMS range 32.0–52.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.1%CMS range 8.8–16.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge10.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge16.3%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge8.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified96.6%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization9.9%CMS range 5.7–14.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.911.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.39
RN hours/ resident / day
1.06
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.31
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.76
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.31
RN hoursweekends
36.4%
Total nursing turnover
56.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 130 beds and averages 120.9 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2023-03-16)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2020-02-06)

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

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-04-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 medical record review, hospital record review, resident, family, staff, physician, and agency staff interviews, review of staff statements, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure safe mechanical lift transfers and further failed to adequately assess, timely notify the physician and resident representative, address resident pain, and conduct a thorough investigation following a fall from a mechanical lift. This resulted in Actual Harm to Resident #36 when on the morning of 04/22/26, the resident fell during a mechanical lift transfer and was found to have sustained a displaced fracture of the distal femur and a distal fifth metacarpal fracture of the left hand. Facility staff failed to thoroughly assess the resident at the time of the incident and the resident cried out in pain throughout the night. Subsequently, in the afternoon of 04/23/26, mobile X-rays were obtained. The facility did not review the X-ray findings until 04/24/26 which, based on a very limited study, showed 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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 medical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a resident who was dependent on staff for showers/bathing received routine showers/bathing. This affected one (#64) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 119.Findings include:Review of Resident #64's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/28/25. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, weakness, anxiety, and muscle weakness.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #64 had moderately impaired cognition and required partial or moderate assistance from staff with tub or shower transfers and for showering or bathing.Review of the care plan dated 05/28/26 revealed Resident #64 had an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance, limited mobility, and Parkinson's disease. Interventions included Resident #64 required moderate assistance…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-16 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide 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, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were implemented per physician order and the plan of care, for residents identified at nutritional risk. This affected two (#39 and #52) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 95. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #52's medical record identified the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type II diabetes mellitus without complications, iron deficiency, dementia, age-related osteoporosis, depression, anxiety, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #52's current plan of care, revised 02/15/23, revealed the resident had a nutritional problem related to fracture of left femur, physical disability, fracture of left humerus, anemia, hypoosmolality/hyponatremia, therapeutic diet order for small portions per request, assist with meals, upper and lower dentures, history 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records regarding documentation for nutritional supplements. This affected one (#52) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of Resident #52's medical record identified the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type II diabetes mellitus without complications, iron deficiency, dementia, age-related osteoporosis, depression, anxiety, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #52's current plan of care, revised 02/15/23, revealed the resident had a nutritional problem related to fracture of left femur, physical disability, fracture of left humerus, anemia, hypoosmolality/hyponatremia, therapeutic diet order for small portions per request, assist with meals, upper and lower dentures, history of falling, eats fifty-percent or less, advanced age, meal and/or supplement refusals, significant…

    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 · E2020-02-06 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure 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

    Based on observations, review of dietary menus, review of dietary spreadsheets, and staff interviews, the facility failed to serve the identified portion sizes of pureed chicken to 12 residents (#4, #5, #9, #16, #23, #57, #59, #65, #76, #80, #93 and #94) who received pureed diets. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of the menu for the lunch meal on 02/03/20 identified the facility was serving chicken, mashed potatoes and green beans. Review of the spreadsheets for the lunch meal on 02/03/20 revealed pureed diets should receive a #10 scoop of pureed chicken. The facility provided a listing that identified size #10 scoop is equal to 3/8 cup or 3 ounce. Observation on 02/05/20 at 11:49 A.M., [NAME] #114 was plating the noon meal. [NAME] #114 was observed to be utilizing a two ounce scoop for the pureed chicken for each of the residents receiving pureed diets. Interview on 02/05/20 at 12:02 P.M., [NAME] #114 confirmed she was not aware the facility menus had portion sizes listed and she just uses the same scoops for each meal. Interview on 02/05/20 at 12:04 P.M.,…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on medical record review, observation, family interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure call lights were in reach for three (#45, #57, #65) of 24 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 119. Findings include: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #45 revealed an admission date of 05/28/16. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left non-dominant side, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, muscle weakness, ataxic gait, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/28/19, revealed Resident #45 was moderately cognitively impaired with behaviors that fluctuate in severity. Resident #45 was assessed as needing extensive assistance for function of bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion. The MDS revealed Resident #45 was assessed as needing extensive assistance for dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Observation on 02/03/20 at 09:53 A.M. revealed Resident #45 was sitting in a recliner with his back to the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor 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 observations, medical records review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to honor resident choice on roommates and who to eat meals with for two (#62 and #85) of 24 sampled residents. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of Resident #62's medical records identified admission to the facility occurred on 11/19/19. Medical diagnoses included dysphasia, anemia, and schizo-affective disorder. The record identified prior to admission to the facility Resident #62 lived with her sister (Resident #85) in the community. Interview on 02/03/20 at 9:28 A.M., Resident #62 identified her sister, Resident #85, was admitted to the facility in December and she wanted to be roommates with her. Resident #62 identified the facility has not made any efforts to try to accommodate the residents' wishes to room together. Resident #62 also stated when her sister and her go to the dinning room they were not permitted to sit next to one another because she required staff to fed her meals. Resident #62 confirmed she would like to sit next to her sister while…

    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 · D2020-02-06 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    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 policy, family interview, review of financial records, and staff interview, the facility failed provide the notice of bedhold policy upon discharge to the hospital for one (#166) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of Resident #166's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 11/30/19. The record identified on 01/17/20 Resident #166 was sent to the hospital and admitted with a fractured hip. The record revealed a lack of bed hold policy notification at the time of hospital discharge. The record identified Resident #166 remained in the hospital from [DATE] through 01/22/20. Review of Resident #166's financial records revealed the resident paid privately for her nursing home stay. She was charged a bed hold for each day she was not in the facility during her hospital admission. Interview on 02/05/20 at 2:06 P.M., Fiscal Office [NAME] #71 stated she was only responsible 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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, resident interview, family interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were invited to participate in their care planning meetings. This affected one (#166) of four residents reviewed for participation in care planning. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of Resident #166's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 11/30/19 following hospitalization. Diagnosis included pathological fractures of the right foot, The facility admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #166 was cognitively intact. The record contained no evidence Resident #166 had been invited to participate in care planning. Interview on 02/03/20 at 3:13 P.M., Resident #166 stated she had never been invited nor attended her care plan meetings, but would if she was asked. Interview on 02/05/20 at 9:18 A.M., Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #87 identified the Minimum Data Set nurse completed the schedule for care planning conferences and she 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-02-06 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on observations, medical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow physician orders for the application of a boot to the lower extremity for one (#1) of five residents reviewed for skin conditions. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 06/17/17. Diagnoses included diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, above the knee amputation and hemiplegia. Review of Resident #1's physician orders identified the use of a zero gravity boot to the left foot at all times. Observation on 02/04/20 at 11:22 A.M. revealed Resident #1 was sitting in a tilt back wheelchair which had medal foot pedals on both sides of the chair. Resident #1 did not have a zero gravity boot on the left foot. Resident #1 left foot was turning into the right side and is toes were hitting the right foot pedal. Interview on 02/04/20 at 11:36 A.M., State Tested Nursing Assist (STNA) #48 confirmed Resident #1 should have a zero gravity boot on his left foot. The STNA stated she had placed the boot in 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · 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

    Based of review of a nurse's note, review of a vision provider note, review of an Eye Glass Tracker form, review of a Vision Care form, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, revealed the facility failed to timely follow up with a vision care provider regarding ordered eye glasses not yet received. This affected one (#91) of one resident reviewed for vision care services. The facility census was 119. Finding included Review of the medical record revealed Resident #91 had an admission date of 02/07/18. Diagnoses included heart failure, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, and diabetes mellitus type two. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/01/20, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Further review of the assessment noted resident had no corrective lenses. Review of a nurse's note dated 10/15/19 10:09 A.M. revealed laundry staff found the resident's eye glasses in the dryer. A screw was missing and one of the lenses was missing. Review of a vision provider note dated 10/17/19 revealed the resident was seen for a diabetic eye exam. 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-01-10 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide 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 record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident, the resident's representative and the Ombudsman of the transfer or discharge and the reason for a residents transfer/discharge in writing. This affected two (#126, #127) of three reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 125. FINDINGS INCLUDED: 1. Review of Resident #127's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/15/18 with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease stage five, dysphasia, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, chronic embolism and chronic respiratory disease with hypoxia. Review of Resident #127's medical record revealed the resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] due to shortness of breath and hypoxia. Resident #127 did not return to the facility. The facility form titled Discharge Tracking, which was used to notify the Ombudsman of the month's discharges, was reviewed. The form did not contain the name of Resident #127, therefore the Ombudsman was failed to be notified 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-01-10 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed to accurately reflect the residents status. This affected one (#2) of two (#2 and #1) resident MDS assessments reviewed. The facility census was 125. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/22/18. Diagnoses included lung cancer, urinary tract infection, and atrial fibrillation. Further review revealed the resident discharged from the facility on 09/19/18. Review of Resident #1's MDS assessments revealed a discharge assessment was not completed for the resident. Interview on 01/10/19 at 9:04 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #333 confirmed Resident #1 should have had a discharge assessment dated [DATE] completed and did not. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, chapter two, page two-34, dated 10/2014, revealed a discharge MDS…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-01-10 · tag F0660 — isolated
    Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and 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, facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had a plan in place for discharge to the least restrictive environment. This affected one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 125. Findings include: Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including Bipolar disorder. Review of progress notes dated 04/25/18 at 1:36 P.M., identified guardian told Resident #31 they would look at discharge after so many months of working. Review of a Care Conference Meeting Documentation dated 04/19/18 identified no evidence of anyone reviewing Resident #31's wishes for discharge plans being made. Review of progress notes dated 07/24/18 at 8:50 A.M. identified Resident #31 struggles with nursing home placement; no plan for discharge presently guardian does not want to be asked about it. The medical record identified no written plan of care 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-01-10 · tag F0661 — isolated
    Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
    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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a discharge summary was completed and post discharge plan of care for one resident (Resident #126) of three sampled for discharge. The facility census was 125. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #126 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Documented diagnoses listed for Resident #125 included pulmonary embolism, muscle weakness, unspecified lack of coordination, localized edema, acute post-hemorrhagic anemia, essential tremor, hypertensive heart disease, embolism and thrombosis of superficial veins of lower extremities, peptic ulcer, and malignant neoplasm of pancreas. Record review of skilled nursing revealed Resident #126 to be alert and oriented to person, place, time and situation. Resident #126 was under palliative care, had weakness noted for activities of daily living, and required assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. Review of discharge planning review form completed on 09/12/18…

    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

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ERIE COUNTY OFFICE OF AUDITOROrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 07/04/1976
PATRICK, DONNAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/26/1998
DENNIE, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/08/2024
VASCHAK, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2010

CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 4 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.

$10.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 3%Other / private 21%

About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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

$311per resident / day
operating cost
$9,454per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$281per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

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 366072. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-03-16, 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.

What to do next