O'neill Healthcare Lakewood

Location & what’s nearby

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

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

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

49.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 158 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 70.7% 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 41 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 114 beds and averages 90.2 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 24 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 3.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.95 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.85 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to supervise a cognitively impaired resident while at an outside appointment. This affected one (Resident #60) of three residents reviewed for outside appointments. The total census was 91. Findings include:Record review of Resident #60 revealed he was admitted to the facility 11/29/24 and had diagnoses including prostate cancer and neuromuscular bladder. His minimum data set assessment on 12/29/25 identified him to have moderate cognitive impairment. There was no documentation of him going out to an appointment on 12/31/25. Interview with Veterans Affairs (VA) Social Worker (SW) #701 on 02/17/26 at 10:40 A.M. revealed the facility sent Resident #60 to a VA appointment on 12/31/25 with no escort. The resident had limited cognitive status and could not participate in the appointment. An attempt to interview Resident #60 on 02/18/26 at 11:36 A.M. revealed he was not interviewable. Interview with Unit Manager Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 and the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/18/26 revealed the facility did not maintain…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the receiving facility when a resident with Influenza A was sent to an outside appointment or reschedule the appointment as needed appropriately. The facility also failed to use enhanced barrier precautions appropriately during wound care. This affected two (Residents #17 and #60) of three residents reviewed for infection control. The total census was 91. Findings include:1. Record review of Resident #60 revealed he was admitted to the facility 11/29/24 and had diagnoses including prostate cancer and neuromuscular bladder. His minimum data set assessment on 12/29/25 identified him to have moderate cognitive impairment. A nasal swab result dated and reported 12/28/25 tested him positive for Influenza A. Review of his orders and treatment administration record revealed him to have been on droplet precautions for influenza from 12/29/25 to 01/05/26. There was no documentation of him going out to an appointment on 12/31/25. Interview…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide appropriate care for an acute change in condition for Residents #116 and #123. This affected two residents (Resident #116 and Resident #123) of four residents reviewed for death. The facility census was 106.Findings Include:1. Resident #116 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia, endocarditis (an infection of the inner lining of the heart and its valves), chronic respiratory failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the left nondominant side following a stroke, end stage renal disease (ESRD) dependent on renal dialysis, congestive heart failure (CHF), bipolar disease, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The resident died on [DATE].Review of the physician's orders for Resident #116 revealed an order was written on [DATE] for the resident to be a full code as well as for continuous oxygen at four liters per…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-27 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #87 received appropriate incontinence care. This affected one resident (Resident #87) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The total census was 105.Findings include: Record review of Resident #87 revealed she was admitted to the facility 06/05/20 and had diagnoses including dementia, diabetes, and encounter for palliative care. Review of the minimum data set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had significant cognitive impairment, was always incontinent, had no listed allergies and no orders or care plan indicating specific alterations to common incontinence care practices. Observation of an incontinence care procedure for Resident #87 on 08/25/25 at 8:43 A.M. by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #501 revealed CNA #501 prepared for the procedure by wetting half of two towels with water. She wiped the resident’s front perineal area twice with one wetted towel, used the dry half of the same towel to dry it, then…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  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 family and staff interviews, review of facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's advance directives were concise and readily retrievable for staff. This affected one (Resident #100) of three residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 97. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #100 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included complication of kidney transplant, end stage kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus. Resident #100 died en route to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the hospital paperwork revealed Resident #100 was to be Full code status on [DATE]. Review of Resident #100's advance directive form revealed DNRCCA was selected on the form and the physician signed it but did not date it. The form had a sticker on it indicating it was from the hospital. Review of the physician orders for [DATE] revealed Resident #100 was a Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care- Arrest (DNRCCA) code status (meaning invasive or…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-05-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #9 had her blood drawn in a private area to maintain infection control. The affected one resident (#9) of three residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 08/16/22. Diagnoses included Parkinsonism, low back pain, cognitive communication disorder, and bipolar disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #9 had moderate cognitive impairment. Residents required supervision set-up help only for bed mobility; total dependence of two-persons for transfers; and extensive one-person assistance for eating and toilet use. Review of the physician's order dated 04/15/24 revealed Resident #9 was to have a complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic panel (BMP) drawn every Monday for routine labs. Review of the care plan dated 05/22/24 revealed Resident #9 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-05-29 · tag F0636 — isolated
  Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
  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 facility policy review the facility failed to complete an accurate admission assessment for Resident #97. This affected one resident (#97) of three residents reviewed for admission assessments. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #97 revealed an admission date of 01/12/24 and a discharge date of 01/16/24. Diagnoses included unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive chronic kidney disease with stage five end stage renal disease. Review of the admission assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #97 revealed no documentation related to Resident #97's abdominal wound. The assessment also listed absent bilateral pedal and radial pulses. Resident #97 was listed as having a colostomy with no assessment of the colostomy site. Resident #97 was listed as complaining of pain in his buttocks/coccyx area, but no skin assessment was completed. No…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-05-29 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a diet order or baseline height and weight for Resident #97 during his stay at the facility. This affected one resident (#97) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #97 revealed an admission date of 01/12/24 and a discharge date of 01/16/24. Diagnoses included unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, hypertensive chronic kidney disease in stage five end stage renal disease. Review of the discharge paperwork from the hospital for Resident #97 dated 01/12/24 revealed no diet order. Review of the physician's orders for January 2024 for Resident #97 revealed no orders for a diet. Review of the admission assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #97 revealed no height or weight. Review of the interim care plan dated 01/12/24 for Resident #97 revealed nothing…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-05-29 · tag F0710 — isolated
  Obtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
  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 facility policy review the facility failed to provide wound physician follow-up for a complicated abdominal wall wound for Resident #97 as ordered on admission. This affected one resident (#97) of three residents reviewed for physician services. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #97 revealed an admission date of 01/12/24 and a discharge date of 01/16/24. Diagnoses included unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive chronic kidney disease in stage five end stage renal disease. Review of the hospital paperwork for Resident #97 revealed he was evaluated on 01/04/24 by a surgeon stating the reason for consultation was evaluation and management of infected abdominal wall surgical site ulcer. Resident #97 was at the hospital from [DATE] to 12/13/23 where he was found to have a large bowel obstruction and he underwent an exploratory…

  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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0660 — isolated
  Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of the facility policy the facility failed to provide Resident #98's representative proper training and education on insulin administration to ensure a safe and orderly discharge. This affected one resident (Resident #98) out of three residents reviewed for discharge planning. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of Resident #98's medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses included acute kidney failure, pancreas and kidney transplant, and type one diabetes mellitus. Resident #98 was discharged AMA (against medical advice) from the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #98's Fall Risk Calculation dated [DATE] revealed Resident #98 was a moderate fall risk. Review of Resident #98's care plan dated [DATE] included Resident #98 was at risk for altered nutrition, hydration status related to kidney transplant, pancreas transplant, diabetes mellitus, and dementia. Resident #98 would be free from signs and symptoms of dehydration through…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to O'NEILL HEALTHCARE — 6 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 →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $3.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OH