Ashtabula County Nursing Home
5740 Dibble Road, Kingsville, OH 44048 · Government - County · 133 certified beds · (440) 224-2161 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Dec 2019
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $13,870 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-25)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 8.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 12.6% | 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 | 4.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.5% | 6.1% | 16.1% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.0% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.2% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.67 | 1.73 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.03 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 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.
58.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 212 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 97 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 35% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 14% — 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 | 58.0%CMS range 50.8–62.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 8.2–14.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 59.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 40.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 65.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 96.9% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.9–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 133 beds and averages 113.5 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 20 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.96 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-02-25 · 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Based on observation, medical record review, review of a facility investigation, hospital records, facility policy, manufacturer's instructions, and interview, the facility failed to identify and implement comprehensive, individualized and adequate fall interventions to prevent a fall with injury during resident care. This affected one resident (#77) of three residents reviewed for accidents/incidents who required use of a shower gurney. The facility identified 32 residents (#3, #5, #11, #12, #21, #25, #27, #28, #29, #30, #33, #37, #41, #42, #43, #58, #59, #61, #62, #67, #77, #79, #81, #87, #89, #93, #94, #101, #103, #104, #112 and #114) who required a shower gurney for bathing. The facility census was 115. Actual Harm occurred on 01/11/26 at 3:00 P.M. when Resident #77, who was dependent on staff for showers and transfers and required substantial to maximum assistance with rolling left 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.
- Actual harm · G2019-12-05 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely assessments were completed and adequate interventions were implemented to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer for Resident #94. Actual Harm occurred on 10/29/19 when Resident #94, who was quadriplegic and required extensive assistance to total dependence on staff for activity of daily living care, including bed mobility and transfers developed an unstageable/Stage IV (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle, slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed, often include undermining and tunneling) pressure ulcer to the coccyx. This affected one resident (#94) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified eight current residents with pressure ulcers. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including quadriplegia, neurogenic bowel, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder and diabetes mellitus…
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 · E2026-07-09 · tag F0699 — patternProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure triggers were addressed for residents with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This affected four (#3, #11, #76 and #81) of four residents reviewed for trauma informed care. The facility identified four residents (#3, #11, #76 and #81) as having a diagnosis of PTSD. The facility census was 104. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 11/13/25 with pertinent diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), vascular dementia, psychotic disturbance and anxiety. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 had moderate cognitive deficits, physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others occurring one to three days in the seven day look back period and verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others occurring four to six days in the seven day look back period. The assessment indicated Resident #11 had 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 · D2026-07-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure staff treated residents with respect and dignity. This affected one resident (Resident #57) out of four residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 104.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an admission date of 06/08/24. Diagnoses included atrial-fibrillation, hearing loss, and acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/28/26, revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The resident required maximum assist for showers/bathing. Touching assist was needed for lower body dressing. The Resident needed set up or clean up assist for lying to sitting, chair to bed transfers, and toilet transfer. Review of the Health Status Note dated 05/28/26 at 4:00 P.M. revealed Resident #57 reported an incident to the Director of Nursing (DON) with the resident's granddaughter present in the room. During care, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #249 was assisting Resident #57 to get dressed for the day and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Oxygen tubing: Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a nebulizer mask was stored in a manner to prohibit contamination. This affected one (Resident #17) of one resident reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 104.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 10/21/22 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had severe cognitive impairment. The assessment also revealed the primary medical condition for Resident #17 was COPD. The assessment revealed Resident #17 had shortness of breath with exertion and lying flat and was on oxygen therapy.Review of the care plan dated 04/29/26 revealed Resident #17 had an altered respiratory status. Interventions included administer medication and puffers as ordered.Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-07-09 · 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, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was performed during wound care. This affected one (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 104.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an initial date of admission of 04/09/19 and a readmission date of 05/03/23 with diagnoses including quadriplegia and chronic osteomyelitis unspecified (an infection affecting bone). Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was cognitively intact and had skin impairment of pressure areas. Review of the care plan dated 06/11/26 revealed Resident #8 was at risk for impaired skin integrity related to impaired mobility, catheter tubing, and quadriplegia. Interventions included check dressings to the coccyx and left ischial wounds, and wound care per order.Observation of wound care on 07/08/26 at 3:11 P.M. revealed three dressings for…
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 · D2026-07-09 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 facility policy, the facility failed to ensure education was provided to residents on the influenza vaccine. This affected two (Resident #8 and #22) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 104.Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an initial admission date of 04/09/19 and a readmission date of 05/03/23 with diagnoses including quadriplegia, chronic osteomyelitis, morbid obesity, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was cognitively intact and was administered the influenza vaccine. Review of the vaccine administration record within the medical record revealed Resident #8 received the influenza vaccine on 09/26/25 and no education was provided prior to the vaccine administration. 2.Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission date of 12/21/24 with diagnoses including…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-04 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
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 Resident #115's guardian was informed and gave consent for Resident #115 to be discharged from the facility. This affected one resident ( Resident # 115) of the three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 114. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #115 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from the facility on 08/12/24. Guardian #392 was listed as the responsible party guardian and emergency contact #1. Resident #115's mother was the emergency contact #2. Medical diagnoses included pulmonary edema, Asperger's syndrome, diabetes, bipolar, hypertension, glaucoma, dependence on renal dialysis, depression, and anemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set ( MDS) 3.0 Discharge Return Not Anticipated assessment dated [DATE] revealed discharge was unplanned to home. Resident #115 had moderate impairment for decision making. Resident #115 displayed physical behaviors. Resident #115 needed set up…
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 · F2023-08-31 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure all meals were served at an appetizing temperature. This had the potential to affect 108 residents at the facility. The facility identified one resident (#30) as receiving no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 109. Findings include: On 08/30/23 at 11:34 A.M. observation of temperatures taken on the tray line revealed the roast turkey measured an internal temperature of 170 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The Brussel sprouts measured an internal temperature of 148 degrees F, and the scalloped corn measured an internal temperature of 160 degrees F. On 08/30/23 at 12:04 P.M. the food cart with the test tray left the kitchen. On 08/30/23 at 12:06 P.M. the cart was on the unit. On 08/30/23 at 12:07 P.M. two staff members started passing the food trays. On 08/30/23 at 12:26 P.M. all resident trays had been passed and the food on the test tray was evaluated. Review of the test tray with Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM) #759 revealed the tray consisted of roast turkey, Brussel sprouts, and scalloped corn. The turkey…
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 · E2019-12-05 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to accurately code alarms on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #29, Resident #63, Resident #96 and Resident #99. This affected four residents (#29, #63, #96 and #99) of four residents reviewed for alarms. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #99 revealed an admission to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #99's current diagnoses included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, generalized osteoarthritis, and primary hypertension. A fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #99 was a high risk of falls. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #99 revealed an order, dated 10/30/19 for motion [NAME] alarm for bathroom, an order dated 09/22/19 for self releasing alarm belt to wheelchair, a motion [NAME] to the residents bed, and an order for bed tender alarm dated 06/05/18. A care plan relative to fall risk revealed individualized interventions for falls…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-12-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 the administration of medication for Resident #62 and during meal services to prevent the spread of infection. This affected one resident (#62) of six residents observed during medication administration and six residents (#10, #27, #63, #73, #85 and #87) of ten residents observed for meal service. Findings include: 1. During medication observation on 12/03/19 at 7:19 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse LPN #610 entered Resident #62's room to obtain a glucometer reading. LPN #610 entered the resident's room, washed her hands, applied gloves and then completed the blood sugar testing. After completing the test, the LPN discarded the items in the appropriate container, removed her gloves and then returned to the medication cart without first performing any hand washing or hand hygiene. The LPN then cleaned the glucometer with a sanitizing wipe and obtained the resident's Lantus Solostar KwikPen from the medication drawer and prepared it for administration. LPN #610…
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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 #49 was free from misappropriation of money. This affected one resident (#49) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 03/01/17 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease and major depression. Review of the form titled, Resident Personal Funds revealed Resident #49 signed on 03/22/17 that she authorized the facility to manage her personal money while she was a resident at the facility. Review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), tracking number 180181 revealed an incident involving misappropriation for Resident #49 was discovered on 09/08/19. The SRI revealed on 09/02/19 State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #600 asked Resident #49 if she would like to have her coin purse locked up rather than leave her money in her room. Resident #49 agreed and STNA #600 took Resident #49's coin purse that contained $38.00 to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)…
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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #62, who had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus received insulin injections in accordance with the physician's order for administration and to meet the resident's needs. This affected one resident (#62) of six residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #62 revealed an admission date of 03/02/18 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus type 2, dementia and chronic kidney disease. Record review revealed the resident had a physician's order, dated 09/18/19 for NovoFine Lantus Solostar KwikPen Insulin Needles, inject one applicator subcutaneously every morning and at bedtime. The order included to rotate sites, use arms not abdomen for injection. During medication administration observation on 12/03/19 at 7:42 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #610 entered Resident #62's room with the prepared Lantus Solostar Kwikpen and exposed the resident's abdomen which revealed two small blue, red, and purple colored bruises to the right…
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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were administered to Resident #59 via gastrostomy tube to decrease the risk of stomach upset/gastrointestinal disturbance. This affected one resident (#59) six residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed an admission date of 06/23/04 with diagnoses including heart failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, gastrostomy status and chronic bronchitis. Review of the physician's orders, dated 06/27/19 revealed the resident had an order for Potassium chloride solution 20 milliequivalents (meq) per 15 milliliters (ml) 10 percent (%) solution, give 7.5 ml via gastrostomy tube once daily for heart failure. During medication administration observation on 12/03/19 at 9:38 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #610 prepared the Potassium chloride solution 10% 7.5 ml into a medication administration cup. Observation of the Potassium Chloride medication label revealed a note that stated, must dilute before using. Interview at the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2026-07-09 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of the posted nurse staffing data report and staff interview, the facility did not ensure all required information was including on the posted nurse staffing report. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 104. Findings include: During the initial facility tour observations on 07/06/26 at 8:10 A.M. revealed the posted document, dated 06/07/26, titled Report of Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care had only the number of nurses, number of nurse aides, the date, and census on it. The posting did not include the total number and actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff responsible for resident care. Review of the Report of Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care dated 06/08/26 to 06/30/26 revealed none included the total number and actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff responsible for resident care. An interview on 07/07/2026 at 4:22 P.M. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #202 revealed she was responsible for creating the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$13,870 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,870 — penalty dated 2026-02-25
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COUNTY OF ASHTABULA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 06/21/1989 |
| DUCRO, J | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2017 |
| KOZLOWSKI, CASEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2017 |
| WHITTINGTON, KATHRYN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2017 |
| CADOVEC, REGINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/27/2023 |
| CRICK, ROBIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/02/2023 |
| DUBIC, GEORGE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/12/2021 |
| FREY, MARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/03/2025 |
| FURMAN, DIANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2016 |
| NEARHOOF, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/17/2023 |
| SALLEE, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/19/2007 |
| TOIKKANEN, TAMMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/1999 |
| WEBER, ROSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/20/2004 |
| AL-SHAHED, ABDALLAH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/05/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $101K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 365741. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-09, 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.