Springview Manor
883 West Spring Street, Lima, OH 45805 · For profit - Corporation · 62 certified beds · (419) 227-3661 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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
- the CMS record shows $16,113 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 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 | 6.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 24.6% | 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 | 4.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.9% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.7% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.3% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.8% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.4% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.4% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.73 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
61.2% 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 114 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 57 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.2%CMS range 51.7–70.5 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 8.1–15.5 | 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 | 63.2% | 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 | 42.1% | 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 | 57.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.8–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 62 beds and averages 58.0 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.76 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.72 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-01-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, staff interview, review of hospital records, review of camera footage, review of the facility's investigation, observations, review of Weather Underground computerized environmental temperatures website, review of Google Maps, and review of the facility's Guideline for Elopement/Missing Resident policy, the facility failed to follow their policy for responding to door alarms and checking residents after the sounding of a door alarm, to prevent the elopement of a cognitively impaired resident, with a history of attempted elopement and who was assessed to be at risk for elopement from the facility. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening injuries, negative health outcomes and/or death, when Resident #11 left the facility through an alarmed door, without staff knowledge, and was found by staff in the Emergency Department (ED) of a local hospital, approximately one-half mile from the facility 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 · F2025-04-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palliative and warm food temperature. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility at the time of entrance. The census was 56. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 06/22/22 with diagnoses including but not limited to panlobular emphysema, influenza, other specified symptoms and signs involving the digestive system, congestive heart failure, auditory and visual hallucinations, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and other symptoms and signs concerning food and fluid intake. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 was cognitively intact. Interview on 04/07/25 at 10:40 A.M. revealed Resident #4 stated that sometimes the food is cold. Resident #4 stated sometimes the food just does not taste good. Observation of the tray line was made on 04/09/25 at 12:18 P.M. with Culinary Support #205. The lunch menu…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-10 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen steamer in a safe operating condition. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility at the time of entrance. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Observation on 04/07/25 at 11:49 A.M. of the kitchen steamer unit revealed it was leaking onto the floor, and it formed a large puddle. Interview on 04/07/25 at 11:49 A.M. with Director of Food Service #5 confirmed the steamer was leaking and making a puddle. Observation on 04/08/25 at 12:04 P.M. of the kitchen steamer unit revealed it was leaking onto the floor. Interview on 04/08/25 at 12:04 P.M. with Director of Food Service #5 confirmed the steamer is still leaking. Observation on 04/09/25 at 12:12 P.M. of the kitchen steamer unit revealed the steamer leaked onto floor out of two places and it made another puddle. Interview on 04/09/25 at 12:12 P.M. with [NAME] #65 confirmed the steamer unit is leaking on the floor. Review of the Preventative Maintenance Procedures policy dated 02/06/18 stated Each piece 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 · F2025-04-10 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure no pervasive odors were present in hallways or common areas. This had the potential to affect all residents. The census was 56. Findings included: Observation on 04/07/25, 04/08/24, and 04/09/24 at various times revealed on the 200 and 300 halls, there was a strong urine smell. Observation on 04/09/24 at 10:40 A.M. in the legacy hall revealed a strong urine smell. Interview on 04/09/24 at 10:50 A.M. with Director of Environmental Services #250 verified strong urine smell throughout the 200 hall, 300 hall, and legacy hall. Director of Environmental Services #250 stated in legacy, two gentlemen urinate on the carpet instead of using the restroom. Director of Environmental Services #250 verified all carpets in the facility are cleaned once a month with a commercial carpet cleaner, dinning chairs are wiped down daily, and cloth upholstery couches are cleaned when housekeeping is notified.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of 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 medical record review, observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to have call lights within reach. This affected three residents (#40, #41, and #17) out of twelve residents observed for call lights. The facility census was 56. Findings included: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #40 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute kidney failure, weakness, difficulty walking, peripheral vascular disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, and mild cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan dated 01/24/25 revealed Resident #40 was at risk for falling due to unsteady gait and poor safety awareness. Call light was to be kept within reach. Observation on 04/07/25 at 11:03 A.M. revealed Resident #40 was laying on her back in bed. Touch call light was on the furthest back corner of nightstand with the dividing curtain covering the touch pad. Call light was not in reach or in sight of Resident #40. 2. Medical record review revealed 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 · D2025-04-10 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure assessments were documented and/or completed prior to and after dialysis. This affected one (#9) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility further failed to ensure dialysis documentation was completed by the dialysis center. This affected one (#9) of one reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #9 revealed admission date of 09/24/24 with diagnoses including but not limited to Parkinson's disease, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, malignant neoplasm, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #9 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. The resident required setup or clean-up assistance for eating. Supervision or touching assistance for oral hygiene, upper body dressing, and personal hygiene. Partial/moderate assistance for lower body…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at the bedside. This affected one (#23) of four residents reviewed for medication pass. The facility further failed to ensure medications were dated when opened. This affected one of three med carts reviewed for med storage. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #23 revealed admission date of 10/16/23 with diagnoses including but not limited to rheumatoid arthritis, cervicalgia, age-related osteoporosis, nonrheumatic mitral valve annulus calcification, cardiomegaly, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pleural effusion, lymphedema, hypothyroidism, and nutritional anemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #23 required supervision or touching assistance for transfers and ambulation. Setup or clean-up assistance for eating, oral hygiene, upper body dressing, lower body…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy the facility failed to ensure staff practices hand hygiene when delivering meal trays. This affected two (#258 and #260) out of seven room trays observed. Census was 56. Findings include: Observation on 04/07/25 at 12:18 P.M. revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #71 carried Resident #258's lunch tray into her room. Before placing lunch tray on bedside tray, CNA #71 removed kleenex box, TV remote and multiple personal items from bedside tray. CNA #71 placed lunch tray on bedside table and removed plastic wrap from top of food and silverware out of napkin and adjusted bedside tray. CNA #71 walked out of Resident #258's room, took a cup of lemonade off food tray and walked into Resident #260's with cup of lemonade, placed it on Resident #260's lunch tray, took the lid off, and walked out the door. No hand hygiene was performed at start of meal tray pass and no hand hygiene was performed in between one resident's room to another resident's room. Interview on 04/07/25 at 12:22 P.M. with CNA #71 and Culinary Support #205 verified…
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 · D2022-07-07 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to timely finalize and transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. This affected two (#30 and #2) of 15 residents reviewed for accuracy of the MDS assessment. The census was 54. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, chronic kidney disease, a diabetes mellitus (DM) type two. Review of a significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], for Resident #30 revealed the encoded data date finalized was 12/09/21. The assessment was transmitted on 12/10/21. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #30 revealed the assessment was finalized on 06/09/22 and transmitted on 07/05/22. Interview on 07/06/22 at 11:47 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #330 verified the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #30 was not transmitted timely. The RN further verified the significant change MDS assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-01 · 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, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment for edema to bilateral lower extremities. This affected one (#47) of two residents reviewed for skin conditions. The facility identified eight residents being treated for edema. The facility census was 50. Findings include: Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/02/19. Medical diagnoses included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, acute respiratory failure, pleural effusion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and urinary retention. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/09/19, revealed Resident #47 had moderate impairment in cognition. She required extensive assistance for dressing and hygiene. Review of the resident's nursing notes revealed documentation of two plus edema to bilateral lower extremities on 07/02/19, 07/03/19, 07/04/19, 07/06/19, 07/09/19, 07/19/19, and 07/20/19. Review of an interdisciplinary team (IDT) 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 · D2019-08-01 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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, medical record review, and family and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a splint was in place as ordered for one (Resident #1) of one residents reviewed for limited mobility. The facility identified three residents with splint devices ordered. The facility census was 50. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/26/14. Medical diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side, dysphagia, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, major depressive disorder, cognitive communication deficit, unspecified dementia with behaviors, cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of unspecified cerebral artery, difficulty in walking, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/01/19, revealed Resident #1's cognition was severely impaired. She required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-01 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received medication as ordered. This affected one (Resident #47) of five residents reviewed for medication. The facility census was 50. Findings include: Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/02/19. Medical diagnoses included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, acute respiratory failure, pleural effusion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and urinary retention. Review of Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/09/19, revealed moderate impairment in cognition. Review of the resident's laboratory results dated [DATE] revealed a potassium level of 2.9 millimoles per liter (mmol/L) (normal 3.5-5.3). The physician was notified and responded on 07/11/19 with an order for potassium supplement 40 milliequivalents (mEq) by mouth now, then potassium 40 mEq twice daily on 07/12/19. 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 · Dcited before2019-08-01 · 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
Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to follow their isolation policy for a resident with a drug resistant infection. This affected one (Resident #47) of two residents reviewed for infections. The facility census was 50. Findings include: Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/02/19. Medical diagnoses included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, acute respiratory failure, pleural effusion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and urinary retention. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/09/19, revealed Resident #47 had moderate impairment in cognition. Review of the resident's laboratory results revealed a urine culture reported on 07/14/19 with results of vancomycin resistant enterococcus faecium (VRE). Continued review revealed no further urine cultures. Review of the resident's physicians orders revealed an order dated 07/15/19 for contact isolation. Review of an…
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
$16,113 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $16,113 — penalty dated 2024-01-10
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.
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 | 4 of 5 | 4.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.3 | -1.3 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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| TRILOGY HOLDINGS NT-HCI, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2021 |
| CORBIN, KATHY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/22/2011 |
| FIGHTMASTER, LISA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| BRYANT, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/05/2016 |
| BUFFORD, RANDALL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| CONNER, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/03/2021 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/21/2017 |
| MEHAFFEY, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/31/2022 |
| PIETROWSKI, CRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/31/2022 |
| PROSKY, DANNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| STREIFF, MATHIEU | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| BARNS, SHANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/27/2018 |
5 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 $929K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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
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 366221. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.