Majestic Care Of Kent
1290 Fairchild Avenue, Kent, OH 44240 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 74 certified beds · (330) 678-4912 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0569)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (39) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 3.5% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 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 | 26.5% | 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 | 2.9% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.1% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.1% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.6% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 28.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 74 beds and averages 51.8 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 22 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.92 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.65 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.06 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
39 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 29 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, interview and review of the United States Pharmacopeia National Formulary Standards, the facility did not ensure medication storage refrigerators were maintained at the proper temperatures for safe medication storage on the 100/200 halls. This had the potential to affect all 28 residents residing on the 100/200 halls (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27 and #28) of 47 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 47. Findings include:An interview on 05/20/26 at 7:06 A.M. with LPN #135 revealed refrigerator temperatures in the medication room were not being monitored daily or being written in after the fact. LPN #135 stated a digit may be added or changed to make the temperature appear higher than it was. LPN #135 stated the medication refrigerator temperatures were too cold at times to safely store the medications. Observation on 05/20/26 at 7:12 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #175 of the 100/200 hall medication storage refrigerator revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-21 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident weights were monitored according to physician orders. This affected two residents (Residents #12 and #48) of three reviewed for nutrition services. The facility census was 47.Findings include:1.Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 03/15/16 with diagnoses including hemiplegia, type two diabetes mellitus, and vascular dementia.Review of the physician order dated 02/28/25 for Resident #12 revealed an order for monthly weights on day shift on the fifth of the month.Review of the clinical weight summary in the medical record for the past five months from 12/25 to 05/26 revealed no monthly weight was recorded for December 2025.Review of the nursing progress notes dated 12/05/25 for Resident #12 revealed staff were unable to obtain weight and would obtain weight the next day. There was no evidence of a second attempt to obtain a weight on Resident #12 in subsequent…
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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure adaptive feeding equipment was provided per physician orders for Resident #12. This affected one (Resident #12) of one resident reviewed for adaptive feeding equipment. The facility identified one resident (Resident #12) as requiring adaptive feeding equipment. The facility census was 47. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 03/15/16 with diagnoses including hemiplegia, type two diabetes mellitus, and vascular dementia.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 had intact cognition and required set up for eating. Review of the physician order dated 10/30/25 for Resident #12 revealed a regular diet with a high sided plate and a rocker knife. Review of resident #12's care plan last revised on 04/26/26 revealed Resident #12 had nutrition risk related to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hemiplegia and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 record review, interview and review of the facility self-reported investigation (SRI) investigation, the facility failed to administer evening medications on 02/21/26 as ordered by the physician to Residents #33, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #43, #44, #45, #46, #47, #49, #50, #52, #54, and #57. This affected 16 (Residents #33, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #43, #44, #45, #46, #47, #49, #50, #52, #54, and #57) of 24 residents reviewed for medication administration on 02/21/26. The facility census was 53.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 05/29/25. Diagnoses included cellulitis of left lower limb, hypothyroidism, and obesity.Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2026 revealed Resident #33 did not receive lactobacillus capsule (probiotic), desmopressin acetate (antidiuretic hormone) 0.1 milligrams (mg), levothyroxine (thyroid hormone) 25 micrograms (mcg) 2 tablets, expedite (liquid collagen) 60 milliliters (ml), ProStat…
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 · D2026-03-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide advanced, written notification of room changes that were signed by the resident and/ or the resident's representative for Residents #16, #30, and #56. This affected three (Residents #16, #30, and #56) of three residents reviewed for room changes.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 01/20/26. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, and obesity.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had intact cognition and required extensive assistance for all activities of daily living.Review of the progress note dated 02/11/26 revealed staff talked with Resident #16 and her daughter on 02/10/26 regarding a room move. The family and resident were agreeable.Review of the intra facility room change form dated 02/11/26 revealed Resident #16 was transferring rooms but was not…
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 · Fcited before2026-01-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean and sanitary kitchen, and store frozen foods in accordance with professional standards of food safety. This had the potential to affect all 51 residents who received food prepared in the kitchen. The facility census was 51Findings include:Observations on 01/28/26 at 8:35 A.M. during a tour of the kitchen revealed the walk-in freezer revealed one large bag of beef patties, one large bag of chicken breasts, one large bag of breaded chicken tenderloins and one large bag of peppers and onions, all opened and undated. Interview at the time of the observation with Kitchen Aide #506 and Facility [NAME] #531 confirmed the findings and stated all opened frozen foods should be sealed and dated to prevent freezer burn. The dishwasher sanitization area had a large amount of black mold-like substance covering the walls below the rinse shelf where the automatic dishwasher was placed. There was also an open wall area approximately six by six inches with exposed wires which were also…
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 · F2025-09-10 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of personnel files, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), review of the facility's investigation and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to implement its abuse policy relative to screening staff against the Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to employment as well as timely reporting, thorough investigations and effective education of staff regarding abuse. This affected three personnel files for [NAME] #569, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #561 and Activity Assistant (AA) #585 out of nine files reviewed with the potential to affect all 55 resident in the facility.1.Review of personnel files on 08/28/25 at 9:21 A.M. and 3:34 P.M. with the Administrator and Human Resources (HR) #590 revealed the following areas of concern: a. Review of CNA #561's personnel file revealed a hire date of 08/22/24. There was no check against the NAR to rule out any findings of abuse and neglect until 03/06/25.b. Review of [NAME] #569's personnel file revealed a hire date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods were labeled, dated and not retained when expired. This affected 53 residents receiving meals from the kitchen as Residents #2 and #50 were ordered nothing-by-mouth. Facility census was 55.Findings include:Observation on 09/02/25 starting at 10:40 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #552 revealed in the dry store room, there was an unlabeled and undated container full of dry brown rice and two expired bags of bread crumbs with an expiration date of 08/01/25. In the walk-in cooler, there was a bottle of raspberry decorative sauce dated 01/27/25.Interviews with DM #552 verified the above findings at the time of observation. DM #552 stated she was to check food dates daily and her staff were to check dates when they prepared food items.Review of a list of resident diets revealed Resident #2 and #50 received no food by mouth.Review of the policy, Labeling and Dating Guidelines, dated 01/02/24, revealed all opened and leftover items will be labeled with the date of opening/date stored and 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 · F2025-09-10 · tag F0843 — widespreadHave an agreement with at least one or more hospitals certified by Medicare or Medicaid to make sure residents can be moved quickly to the hospital when they need medical care.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a written transfer agreement with one or more hospitals. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents residing in the facility.Findings include:Review of the hospital-nursing facility transfer agreement dated 12/31/24 revealed the hospital had not signed the agreement, only the facility agent.Interview on 09/03/25 at 8:22 A.M. with the Administrator revealed she was unable to find a signed transfer agreement with a hospital. She stated she was only able to locate the transfer agreement dated 12/31/24 and it was not signed by the hospital.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-10 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview, the facility failed to ensure their Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee identified and followed through on staff education. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents in the facility. Findings include:Findings include:Review of the facility QAPI minutes and Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) documentation revealed the following plans without continued corrective action, evidence the plan was revised when necessary or changed once identified to be ineffective:Review of the QAPI meeting dated 03/12/25 revealed facility staff met to review concerns for January and February 2025. Online education began in February 2025 with only a 14% staff participation rate. The plan was to provide training, post signs in the breakroom, review during monthly in-services and to have a gift card giveaway. The minutes did not specify what the online education was.Review of the QAPI meeting dated 06/02/25 revealed facility staff met to review concerns for March and April 2025. Online education…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 29 citations
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 personnel file review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff had tuberculosis (TB) testing prior to working. This affected two staff (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #536 and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #561) of nine staff reviewed during the annual survey with the potential to affect all 55 residents.Findings include:Review of LPN #536's personnel file revealed a hire date of 05/05/25. Further review of the personnel file revealed no evidence TB testing was completed prior to or upon employment.Review of CNA #561's personnel file revealed a hire date of 08/22/24. Further review of the personnel file revealed no evidence TB testing was completed prior to or upon employment.Interview on 09/03/25 at 2:46 P.M. with Regional Human Resources (RHR) #600 and Human Resources (HR) #590 verified they could not locate initial TB testing for LPN #536 or CNA #561. RHR #600 stated a two-step TB test was done upon hire for all new employees.Review of the facility policy,…
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 · F2025-09-10 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — widespreadEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on personnel file review and interview the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) had 12 hours of training annually as required. This affected one CNA (#561) of two CNA files reviewed with the potential to affect all 55 residents.Findings include:Review of CNA #561's personnel file revealed a date of hire of 08/22/24. Further review of the file revealed no evidence of training hours.Interview on 09/03/25 at 2:46 P.M. with Regional Human Resources (RHR) #600 and Human Resources (HR) #590 verified they could not locate any evidence of training hours for CNA #561. RHR #600 stated for CNAs, they aimed for at least 12 hours annually for training.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain resident rooms and bathrooms in a safe and sanitary condition. This affected four residents (Resident #28, #31, #34, and #44) of 55 residents living in the facility. The facility census was 55.Findings include:Interview and observation on 09/02/2025 at 4:41 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #555 of Resident #31 room revealed splatters of food on all four walls and the ceiling of room and outlet by bed was unattached from wall with the wires hanging out.Observation on 09/03/25 between 2:47 P.M. through 3:00 P.M. of multiple resident rooms with Housekeeping Supervisor #513 revealed the following:Resident #31 walls and ceiling were dirty with various food and liquid debris from resident throwing his food. Outlet was being fixed by maintenance at this time. Housekeeping Supervisor #513 revealed Resident #31 throws food at the wall and will put feces on the wall. Staff was supposed to clean daily but confirmed staff had not been wiping walls thoroughly.Resident #34 and Resident #44…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure authorizations were witnessed for resident funds. This affected one resident (#42) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. Facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of Resident #42's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/19/22 and diagnoses including depression, insomnia, auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders, and psoriasis. Further review of the record revealed Resident #42 had a power of attorney (POA).Review of financial records for Resident #42 revealed an authorization for resident funds signed by the POA on 05/05/25. The authorization lacked any witness signatures on the form.Interview on 09/03/25 at 8:45 A.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #523 verified Resident #42 did not have his resident funds authorization witnessed as required. BOM #523 reported the facility did not have a policy regarding resident funds to provide for review at the time of the interview.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure final disbursal of a deceased resident's funds was completed in 30 days as required. This affected one resident (#64) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. Facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of Resident #64's closed medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including personality disorder, breast cancer, insomnia and mild cognitive impairment. Further review of the record revealed Resident #64 expired in the facility on [DATE].Review of the financial records for Resident #64 revealed she expired on [DATE]. The resident statement indicated the balance of $75.77 was issued as a check on [DATE].During an interview on [DATE] at 8:45 A.M. Business Office Manager (BOM) #523 was informed that Resident #64's final disbursement exceeded the 30-day limit and she did not disagree. BOM #523 stated the receptionist and not herself did the disbursal for Resident #64. BOM #523 also reported the facility did not have…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), review of the facility's investigation and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse and neglect immediately as required. This affected two residents (#23 and #49) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/01/24 and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, constipation, generalized anxiety disorder, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, psychotic disorder and mood affective disorder. Resident #49 had a legal guardian and was receiving hospice services.Review of Resident #49's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had cognitive impairment, displayed physical and verbal behaviors one to three days in the look-back period and was dependent for upper body and lower body dressing.Review of Resident #23's medical record…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), review of the facility's investigation and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse and neglect. This affected two residents (#23 and #49) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Facility census was 55.Findings include: Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/01/24 and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, constipation, generalized anxiety disorder, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, psychotic disorder and mood affective disorder. Resident #49 had a legal guardian and was receiving hospice services. Review of Resident #49's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had cognitive impairment, displayed physical and verbal behaviors one to three days in the look-back period and was dependent for upper body and lower body dressing. Review of Resident #23's medical record…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, observation, and mechanical lift policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #30 was safely transferred with a Hoyer (mechanical) lift to prevent a fall. This affected one resident (Resident #30) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 08/20/25 with diagnosis that include: urinary tract infection, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy, catatonic disorder, dementia without behavioral disturbance, metabolic encephalopathy, dysphagia and altered mental status.Review of Morse Fall Scale dated 08/20/25 revealed Resident #30 was a high risk for falling.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 cognition was moderately impaired and was dependent on staff for transfers from the chair to the bed.Review of Resident #30 medical chart revealed resident had fallen on 08/21/25, 08/30/25, 08/31/25, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure Resident #7, who received hemodialysis (HD) three times a week, was evaluated before and after dialysis treatments. This affected one resident (Resident #7) of one resident received for HD. Facility census was 55.Findings include:Record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD) - Stage3, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, dependence of renal dialysis, heart disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and Vitamin D deficiency.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, for Resident #7, dated 06/20/25 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the physician orders for Resident #7, dated 04/21/25, revealed that a pre and post assessment needs to be completed on dialysis days.On 09/03/25 at 5:00 P.M., a review of Dialysis PRE/POST Communication Record- - V 2 from 09/01/25, 09/02/25, and 09/03/25…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications to treat diabetes and to improve glucose control were administered as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #61) of six reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 55.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 12/21/24 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, hypertension and heart failure. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #61 revealed an order for Insulin Lispro (medication for hyperglycemia) 55 units in the morning and at night dated 12/22/24 and Humalog (medication for hyperglycemia) sliding scale insulin to be given per the blood sugar to be done in the morning, at lunch, at dinner and at bedtime dated 12/22/24.Review of the Medication Administration Record for December 2024 for Resident #61 revealed his Insulin Lispro was not administered on 12/23/24 in the morning and Humalog sliding scale was not administered on 12/23/24 at lunch.Review of Resident #61's care plan dated 12/23/24 revealed he had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and secured. This affected two (Residents #10 and #55) of two residents reviewed for improperly stored medications. The facility had a census of 55 residents.Findings include:Observation on 08/27/25 at 9:08 A.M. of medication administration with Registered Nurse (RN) #564 to Resident #55 revealed two bottles of Nystatin Powder (antifungal medication used to treat fungal or yeast infections) on her television stand. Once the medication administration was completed and when leaving room, noted Resident #55's roommate, Resident #10, to have a bottle of Nystatin Powder on her tray table. Interview on 08/27/25 at 9:08 A.M. with RN #564 verified medications should not have been in either residents' room as the physician had not ordered medications to be left at bedside for the resident to self-administer.Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 01/02/24, revealed medications were not to be left unattended in the resident's room.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete resident records. This affected three residents (#49, #60, #64) of 23 resident records reviewed for documentation. Facility census was 55.Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, constipation, generalized anxiety disorder, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, psychotic disorder and mood affective disorder. Review of Resident #49's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had cognitive impairment, displayed physical and verbal behaviors one to three days in the look-back period and was dependent for upper body and lower body dressing. Review of Resident #49's physician's orders revealed an order dated [DATE] for Lorazepam oral tablet 0.5 milligrams (mg) give one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for anxiety. Review of a hospice note dated [DATE] at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-03-30 · tag F0945 — failed to train staff on abuse prevention — widespreadInclude as part of its infection prevention and control program, mandatory training that includes written standards, policies, and procedures for the program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure education was provided to State Tested Nursing Assistants regarding residents placed on enhanced barrier precautions. This affected six residents (Resident #1, #2, #17, #22, #42, #45) with the potential to affect all 53 residents in the facility. Findings included: Interview with five Stated Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA #547, STNA #565, STNA #567, STNA #574 and STNA #575) on 03/28/23 from 2:06 P.M. to 3:02 P.M. revealed these STNA's when asked, did not know what enhanced barrier precautions meant. These STNAs also did not know what type of Personal Protective Equipment they were required to wear when entering a resident's room who was on enhanced barrier precautions. Review of residents on enhanced barrier infection control precautions revealed Resident #1, #2, #17, #22, #42, #45 were on precautions. Review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 07/22 revealed enhanced barrier precautions were precautions intended for a resident with infections, wounds, and/or with…
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 · E2023-03-30 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #9, #14, #18, and #51 were complete and accurate. This affected four residents (Resident #9, #14, #18, and #51) of four residents reviewed for the accuracy and completion of their MDS. The facility census was 53. Findings included: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 12/01/22 and her diagnoses included cerebral infarction, chronic kidney disease with heart failure, diabetes, and dysphagia. Review of Medicare Five-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #9 revealed Section C which included Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score, assessment of short-term memory, assessment of long term assessed memory, assessment of memory/ recall ability assessed, assessment of cognitive skills for daily decision making, and assessment of sign and symptoms of delirium was not assessed. The MDS also revealed Section Q which included resident, family and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-30 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a secure manner and disposed of when they had expired. This affected four residents (Residents #2, #14, #18 and #48) with the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of Resident #2's physician's orders for [DATE] revealed he had an order for Insulin Glargine (Lantus) (medication used for high blood sugar) 100 units per milliliter (mL) dated [DATE]. The nursing staff were to inject 30 units subcutaneously at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record for [DATE] revealed Resident #2 received his Insulin Glargine as ordered. Observation on [DATE] at 3:05 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #576 of the medication cart on the 200 hall revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-30 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure Residnet #20 and #23's authorization agreement to manage funds were witnessed by a person not affiliated with the facility. This affected two residents (Resident #20 and #23) out of five residents reviewed for resident funds. Findings included: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 04/01/19 and her diagnoses included encephalopathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of care plan dated 05/05/19 revealed Resident #20 had impaired cognition, dementia, and/ or impaired thought process due to encephalopathy, frontal lobe dementia, and short term memory loss. Interventions included communicate with family regarding capabilities and needs and provide assistance with decision making. Review of facility form labeled Resident Fund Management Service dated 03/10/20 revealed Resident #20 signed the authorization agreement to allow the facility to handle her funds. The authorization agreement was not witnessed. Interview on 03/28/23 at 4:04 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-30 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #12 was free from physical abuse involving manual restraint. This affected one resident (#12) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 02/10/23. Resident #12's diagnoses included dementia, diabetes mellitus, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, heart failure and anxiety disorder. Review of the plan of care for Resident #12 dated 02/15/23 and a revision date of 02/28/23 revealed Resident #12 had a traumatic event identified as physical abuse by a homecare worker in 2019 with injury. Resident #12's triggers were identified as receiving care. Resident #12 would make false allegations of abuse and refuses medications at times. Interventions include but were not limited to allow resident to express feelings when triggers are identified, develop strategies with resident to avoid or decrease trauma triggers, and staff being aware of triggers or potential triggers and understand…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse towards Resident #12 was reported immediately and failed to ensure the resident was protected from further abuse after the allegation was made. This affected one resident (#12) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 02/10/23. Resident #12's diagnoses included dementia, diabetes mellitus, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, heart failure and anxiety disorder. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/17/23, revealed the resident had intact cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility and transfers. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #12 had verbal and other behaviors that occurred one to three days during the look back period. Review of the plan of care for Resident #12 dated 02/15/23 and a revision date of 02/28/23 revealed Resident #12 had a traumatic event identified as physical…
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 · D2023-03-30 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper incontinence care was provided to Resident #16. This affected one resident (Resident #16) out of two residents who were reviewed incontinence care. Findings included: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included anemia, hypertension, type II diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, a central venous attack (CVA), and dementia. Review of Resident #16's Minimum Data assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Functionally, she needed extensive assistance of one staff member for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of her bowel and bladder assessment of this MDS revealed the resident was always incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. Observation of Resident #16 on 03/28/23 at 3:00 P.M. revealed two State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) provided incontinence care to this resident. The resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-30 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #38 received his nutritional supplement as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #38) out of two residents reviewed for nutritional needs. Findings included: Review of medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 02/20/23 and his diagnoses included catatonic schizophrenia, dementia, dysphagia, and depression. Review of weight record for Resident #38 revealed on 02/20/23 his admission weight was 163 pounds. The weight record revealed Resident #38 had weight loss as his weight on 03/20/23 was 155.2 pounds which was a three percent change over the last 30 days. His weight remained on 03/28/23 at 155 pounds. Review of admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was rarely and/ or never understood. He required extensive assistance of one person with eating. His weight was recorded as 165 pounds with no weight loss. He was on a mechanically altered diet. Review of care plan dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-30 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen orders were in place for Residents #14 and #18. This affected two residents (Resident #14 and Resident #18) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 12/04/20 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the physician's orders for March 2023 revealed there were no orders for Resident #14 to have oxygen. Observation on 03/27/23 at 9:56 A.M. of Resident #14 revealed she had oxygen on via a nasal cannula and the oxygen concentrator was set at three liters. Interview with Resident #14 revealed she always had oxygen on. Interview on 03/27/23 at 10:28 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #576 verified Resident #14 had oxygen on at 3 liters and she did not have a physician's order. Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Handling, revised January 2021, revealed 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 · Dcited before2023-03-30 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dialysis residents were monitored before and after dialysis treatments. This affected one (Resident #2) of one resident receiving dialysis. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the physician's order dated 11/29/22 for Resident #2 revealed he had dialysis on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays. Staff were to obtain vital signs before and after dialysis. Review of Resident #2's assessments for March 2023 revealed dialysis assessments were not completed prior to dialysis. Dialysis assessments for Resident #2 were only completed after dialysis on 03/01/23, 03/13/23, 03/15/23 and 03/20/23. Interview on 03/29/23 at 9:09 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #2's dialysis assessments were not completed as stated above. He stated it was the facility's policy that…
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 · D2023-03-30 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure care planned interventions were implemented to provide Resident #12 comfort and opportunities for choice during care and to maintain the highest practicable mental and psycho-social well being. This affected one resident (Resident #12) out of one resident reviewed for behavioral health services. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 02/10/23. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes mellitus, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, heart failure and anxiety disorder. Review of the physician orders dated 02/10/23 revealed an order for psychology consult as needed. Review of the physician orders dated 02/14/23 revealed Resident #12 required a room on the secured unit to promote psychosocial well-being and interactions with peers. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/17/23, revealed the resident had intact cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed…
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 · D2023-03-30 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to honor food preferences. This affected two residents (#12 and #47) out of two residents for food preferences. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 02/10/23. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes mellitus, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, heart failure and anxiety disorder. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/17/23, revealed the resident had intact cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility and transfers. The resident required supervision with eating and received a therapeutic diet. Review of physician's orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #12 received a consistent carbohydrate diet (CCD), regular texture with thin consistency liquids. Review of the Resident #12's diet tray ticket revealed Resident #12 received a renal CCD diet with no dislikes or preferences mentioned. It indicated a house nutritional shake 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 · Dcited before2023-03-30 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions during wound care, and failed to ensure staff followed infection control standards to prevent cross contamination in regards to use of a glucometer. This affected one (Resident #22) of one resident reviewed for wound care and two (Residents #2 and #20) of two residents reviewed for blood sugar checks with a glucometer. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #22 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia and a pressure ulcer to the sacral region. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #22 revealed an order for enhanced barrier precautions related to catheter and wound care dated 01/09/23. Observation on 03/28/23 at 1:00 P.M. of wound care with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #561 to Resident #22 revealed she was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. There was signage on the door stating Enhanced barrier precautions, everyone must clean their…
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 · Fcited before2019-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen to prevent contamination and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to affect 71 of 71 residents residing in the facility who received meal trays. The facility identified two residents, Resident #9 and #64 who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 73. Findings include: A tour of the kitchen on 08/12/19 from 8:30 A.M. to 8:50 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #503, revealed the following observations: On the bottom shelf of the prep sink there were various dried food crumbs scattered throughout. Stored on this shelf were two blenders and attachments, and a silver rack that held cutting boards. The top of the dish machine had a moderate amount of a tannish, wet residue. The prep table next to the steam table, the outer surface appeared worn and rusted. The side of this prep table that faced the steam table had a moderate layer of blackish grease and various dried food splatters. The bottom shelve of the steam table had various dried food crumbs and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-08-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain adequate infection control practices during meal delivery, blood glucose monitoring and during housekeeping services to prevent the spread of infection. This affected two residents (#4 and #19) observed receiving meal trays, two residents (#16 and #8) observed during blood glucose monitoring, one resident (#219) observed in contact precautions and had the potential to affect all 73 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/12/19 at 12:15 P.M. revealed State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #500 was observed passing a meal tray to Resident #19. STNA #500 entered the resident's room, placed the tray down and moved the bed tray closer to the resident who was laying in bed. The STNA then exited the room, obtained a meal tray for Resident #4 without first washing hands or using hand sanitizer and proceeded to obtain a meal tray for Resident #4. STNA #500 opened the door to Resident #4's room using the left hand and placed the tray down on the resident's bed tray. STNA #500…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-15 · 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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #39, who required staff assistance with toileting received timely and adequate care related to the use of a bedside commode. This affected one resident (#39) of one resident reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including closed fractures of the lower end femur and left tibia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 07/12/19 revealed Resident #39 had intact cognition and required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and toilet use. Interview on 08/12/19 at 11:06 A.M. with Resident #39 revealed she used the bedside commode and often it took staff a long time to empty it. Resident #39 stated she needed assistance on and off the bedside commode, so staff were aware it needed to be emptied. Resident #39 stated one day six hours went by before it was emptied. Observation on 08/14/19…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-15 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure resident medical record documentation was accurate and complete related to antibiotic use. This affected three residents (#48, #62 and #63) of three residents reviewed for antibiotic use. Findings include: A review of Resident #48's physician's orders revealed an order for Azithromycin Tablet 500 milligrams (mg), one tablet by mouth at bedtime for upper respiratory infection (URI), to start 08/05/19 for seven days. A review of Resident #48's progress notes revealed only one entry regarding a reaction to the antibiotic. A review of Resident #62's physician's orders revealed an order for Cephalexin 500 mg, one tablet by mouth twice daily for urinary tract infection (UTI), to start on 08/07/19 for seven days. A review of Resident #62's progress notes revealed no entries regarding the start of treatment nor follow up of antibiotic treatment to show progress, resident condition, or any adverse reactions. A review of Resident #63's physician's orders revealed an order for Cephalexin 500 mg, two tablets by mouth once daily…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 MAJESTIC CARE — 22 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDG MAJESTIC OHIO OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/31/2024 |
| MARX, DAVID | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2024 |
| WAGNER, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/30/2024 |
| CHAMBERLAIN, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/30/2024 |
| PRUITT, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/30/2024 |
| MAJESTIC MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/19/2025 |
| LOUGHREY, HOLLIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/30/2024 |
| ALEXANDER, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| REWA, ANGELA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| RUSSELL, ROBERT | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| SHATROV, ANZHELIKA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| WOLFE, ERIC | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| KENT OH HEALTH & REHAB REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2024 |
| MDG MAJESTIC OHIO PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 83% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $667K 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365834. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.