The Springs At Wyandot Trail
1495 Granville Pike, Lancaster, OH 43130 · For profit - Corporation · 52 certified beds · (740) 901-0356 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS ownership filings flag it as owned by a private-equity firm or REIT — a category that performs worse on staffing on average, though that average says nothing certain about this home, and CMS filings undercount these ties, so other homes here may have them unflagged (what the research actually shows →)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
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 | 8.5% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 18.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 1.4% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.0% | 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 | 2.8% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.1% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.1% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
Met the expected recovery: 59.4% 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 64 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 | 59.4% | 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 | 56.2% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 95.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.3% | 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 | 1.2% | 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 | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 52 beds and averages 41.6 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 10 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 4.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.98 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 4.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.63 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.17 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview with staff, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's electronic charting system was secure during medication administration. This affected 12 residents residing in the 300 hall (Resident #24, #26, #34, #20, #23, #41, #9, #40, #17, #44, #19, and #27) of 12 residents reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 44. Findings include:On 04/13/2026 at 9:47 A.M., during morning medication pass in 300 hall, Registered Nurse (RN) #228 was observed walking away from the medication cart. The laptop located on the medication cart remained open, and the facility's electronic charting system was visible and accessible to anyone in the immediate area. At 9:50 A.M., RN #625 approached the medication cart and began administering medications to residents in 300 hall. At 9:52 A.M., RN #625 entered a resident's room while the laptop screen remained open, and the facility's charting system was visible. This observation was corroborated by Housekeeper #627, who was present in the hallway at the time of the observation.At 9:55 A.M., RN #625 returned to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-16 · 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, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with completing activities of daily living, which included shaving. This affected one (Resident #55) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 44 residents.Findings include:Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, traumatic brain injury, lymphedema, and sleep apnea.Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Evaluation dated 04/10/26 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the functional assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 required substantial or maximal assistance with shower and bathe self.Review of Resident #55's baseline plan of care dated 04/08/26 revealed a goal to achieve and maintain maximum Activities of Daily Living (ADL) functional potential with interventions that included providing assistance to ensure safe completion of ADL tasks.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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to address a resident's hearing aids going missing and put through laundry. This affected one (Resident #3) of one resident reviewed for hearing. The facility census was 44. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 12/17/2025. Diagnosis included stage 2 chronic kidney disease, neoplasm of the colon, and depression. Review of the plan of care dated 12/17/25 revealed Resident #3 demonstrates hearing loss. Interventions included to refer to speech therapy for evaluation of need for communication device as appropriate, use hearing aids as indicated, refer to physician to assess for wax buildup and monitor for changes in hearing, refer to audiologist for a hearing evaluation as needed, ensure resident is near the activity leader/speaker during activities and care-giver, use written communication as needed. communicate with resident in a clear, concise manner, increase volume to ensure resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to accurately assess pressure ulcers for Resident #9. This affected one resident (#9) of the three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 44.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 12/21/24 with diagnoses of but not limited to functional quadriplegia, unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, pressure ulcer of right hip, and non-pressure ulcer of other part of right foot limited to breakdown of skin. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. Additionally, the MDS revealed Resident #9 was dependent on staff for showers, toileting hygiene, and lower body dressing. Resident #9 was at risk for pressure ulcers, but had non-surgical dressings being applied other than to feet. Resident #9 had no psychosis, no verbal or physical behaviors…
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 · D2026-04-16 · 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 interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to use a Hoyer lift (a mechanical device used to transfer individuals with limited mobility) during a resident transfer as per care plan resulting in a fall without injury. This affected one (Resident #15) of five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 44 residents.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included repeated falls, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness (generalized).Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 was cognitively intact, required substantial or maximal assistance for shower/bathe self, and was dependent for sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, and toilet transfer.Review of the care plan dated 03/25/26 revealed Resident #15 was dependent assist with Hoyer lift for transfers.Review of 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-16 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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, staff interview, and review of insulin pen directions, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate did not exceed five percent (%). The facility had two medication errors of 38 opportunities for an error rate of 5.41%. This affected one Resident (#11) of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 44 residents.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 04/02/26 and diagnoses of but not limited to encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation of right toe, osteomyelitis, sepsis due to methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus, cellulitis of right lower limb, type two diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer, constipation, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. Resident #11 received insulin injections.Review…
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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, staff interview, and insulin pen instructions, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when the nurse did not prime the insulin pen prior to administration. This affected one resident (#11) of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 44 residents.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 04/02/26 and diagnoses of but not limited to encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation of right toe, osteomyelitis, sepsis due to methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus, cellulitis of right lower limb, type two diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer, constipation, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. Resident #11 received insulin injections.Review of an order for Resident #11 dated 04/03/26 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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each 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 and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents received necessary and timely dental services. This affected one (Resident #5) of one records reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 44 residents.Findings include:Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia, need for personal assistance with care, and unspecified dementia. Review of Resident #5's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) dated 01/30/26 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment.Review of Resident #5's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed the resident used a wheelchair for mobility. Resident #5 was dependent for self-care and mobility.Review Resident #5's care plan dated 02/06/26 revealed the resident was at risk for malnutrition related to no natural teeth (edentulous) with a full upper denture only.Review of the progress note 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 · D2026-04-16 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control protocols during incontinence care. This affected one (Resident #5) of one resident observed for incontinence care. The facility census was 44.Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, urinary tract infection, need for personal assistance with care, and unspecified dementia.Review of Resident #5's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) dated 01/30/26 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment.Review of Resident #5's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed the resident used a wheelchair for mobility and was dependent for toileting hygiene. Resident #5 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and had not had a trial of a toileting program.Review Resident #5's care plan dated 02/06/26 revealed the resident experienced episodes of incontinence related to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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 TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES — 123 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 122; lowest-rated first.
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 ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as a private-equity firm and a real-estate investment trust (REIT). That’s a fact worth knowing: peer-reviewed research links private-equity and REIT ownership to lower staffing and more citations on average — though any individual home can run well or poorly regardless. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT INC — REIT · 100.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- TRILOGY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST — REIT · 100.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- GAHC3 TRILOGY JV LLC — private equity · 94.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- TRILOGY HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS INC — private equity · 100.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLC — private equity · 28.66% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 29% | since 10/01/2021 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/30/2024 |
| CONNER, GREGORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/30/2024 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/30/2024 |
| MCNAMARA, DONALD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| MEHAFFEY, TODD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/30/2024 |
| PIETROWSKI, CRISTINA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/31/2022 |
| PROSKY, DANNY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| WILLHITE, GABRIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| CORBIN, KATHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/10/2011 |
| FIGHTMASTER, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/23/2015 |
| GUTHRIE, MEGAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| LLOYD, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2024 |
| THACKER, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/19/2022 |
| AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT HOLDINGS LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| GAHC3 TRILOGY JV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| GAHC4 TRILOGY JV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
| TRILOGY INVESTORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| TRILOGY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| TRILOGY REIT HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 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.
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 725000. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-16, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.