Cardinal Woods Skilled Nursing & Rehab Ctr
6831 Chapel Road, Madison, OH 44057 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (440) 428-5103 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Dec 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 4 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (42) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $74,518 in federal fines (most recent 2026-05-28)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (67%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 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 | 4 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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.3% | 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 | 0.6% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 38.1% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 5.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.7% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.8% | 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 | 1.6% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.8% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.5% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.8% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.03 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.12 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 29 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.9% 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 21 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 | 55.7%CMS range 37.7–70.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 7.3–16.1 | 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 | 61.9% | 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 | 47.6% | 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 | 38.1% | 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 | 96.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 12.9% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 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 120 beds and averages 89.9 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.02 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 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 2.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.15 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 67% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
42 citations, most serious first. The 15 most serious are shown; the remaining 27 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), review of local law enforcement reports, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect Resident #71's right to be free from abuse by Resident #93 and failed to protect Resident #64's right to be free from abuse by Resident #88. This affected two residents (#71 and #64) of four residents reviewed for abuse. Actual Harm occurred on 11/13/25 when Resident #71 reported he had been inappropriately touched and choked by another Resident (#93). Upon assessment, Resident #71 was noted to have an abrasion to his lower neck and scratches to his left shoulder. Resident #71 complained of a sore throat and rectal tenderness. The resident's rectum was assessed to be reddened. The resident was transferred to the hospital for evaluation but subsequently declined having a rape assessment completed. Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #71 revealed an admission date of 09/02/25. Resident #71 had diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, review of the facility self-reported incident (SRI) and investigation, review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #12 was free from physical abuse by Resident #40. Actual harm occurred on 03/16/25 when Resident #40, who had known verbal and physical aggressive behaviors towards others, punched Resident #12 in the face, head, and neck approximately 20 times resulting in facial and scalp contusions, headache and neck pain requiring evaluation and treatment in the hospital emergency room (ER). Resident #12 had X-rays, and a Computed Axial Tomography (CAT) scan performed while in the ER which indicated there were no broken bones. Resident #12 was diagnosed with physical assault, head, face, and neck contusions. Resident #12 returned to the facility on [DATE] with orders to see a concussion specialist on 03/26/25 at 2:30 P.M. This affected one resident (Resident #12) out of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 94. Findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, review of the hospital records, review of the fall incident, facility policy review and family, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified immediately of an unwitnessed fall with injury, and failed to timely update the physician on increased, severe pain and delay transferring the resident in and out of bed until further orders from the physician were obtained to prevent further injury and pain for Resident #57. Actual harm occurred beginning on 02/21/25 when Resident #57, who was severely cognitively impaired had an unwitnessed fall in his room with evidence of left foot rotation and increasing complaints of pain in his hips without timely and adequate treatment. The resident subsequently developed severe hip pain after being repeatedly transferred in and out of bed without obtaining orders from the physician throughout 02/21/25 and 02/22/25 with the resident yelling out, it hurts at the top while pointing to his bilateral…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-06-28 · 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
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide adequate assistance/supervision to prevent a fall with injury for Resident #58. This affected one resident (#58) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 88. Actual Harm occurred on 06/08/24 when Resident #58, who was assessed as requiring substantial/maximal assistance with showers, was left unattended in the shower, resulting in a fall with a right hip fracture. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #58 revealed an admission date of 01/04/18 with diagnoses including fracture of the left femur on 01/28/20, chronic pain syndrome, and difficulty walking. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/09/24, revealed Resident #58 had intact cognition. The assessment revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for showers, upper body dressing, and lower body dressing. The assessment also noted the resident used a power wheelchair for mobility. Review of the plan of care (initiated 01/18/18) and last revised on 05/12/24 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-12-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, medical record review, review of an emergency medical service run report, review of hospital medical records, review of witness statements, review of a mechanical lift sling invoice, review of the mechanical lift instruction manual, review of the mechanical lift sling owner's manual, review of facility policy, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a mechanical lift and mechanical lift sling were used according to manufacturer's guidelines and failed to ensure proper mechanical lift transfer technique was used for Resident #58 to prevent a fall with injury. This affected one resident (#58) of three residents reviewed for falls. The census was 97. Actual harm occurred on 10/30/23 at approximately 10:58 A.M., when a mechanical lift was used with an incompatible mechanical lift sling and one of two staff members present during the mechanical lift transfer was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-05-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, review of maintenance records and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods were stored and served at appropriate temperatures to prevent foodborne illnesses. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 89 residents in the facility who were identified to receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 89.Findings include:1. Observation on 05/18/26 at 8:30 A.M. revealed the temperature in the facility's walk-in refrigerator was 49 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Concurrent interview with Food Service Manager (FSM) #601 verified the walk-in refrigerator temperature.Observation on 05/19/26 at 10:50 A.M. revealed the temperature in the facility's walk-in refrigerator was 49 degrees F. Concurrent interview with FSM #601 verified the walk-in refrigerator temperature.Review of facility policy titled, Food Storage, undated, revealed the food storage temperature for the refrigerator was between 37 degrees F to 40 degrees F.2.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-28 · 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 closed medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented. This affected one (#98) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 89.Findings include:Review of the closed medical record for Resident #98 revealed an admission date of 09/02/25. Diagnoses included senile degeneration of the brain, repeated falls, and unspecified dementia. Resident #98 discharged from the facility on 12/02/26.Review of the the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #98 had severe cognitive impairment and had one fall without injury since the last assessment period. Review of a physician order dated 09/09/25 revealed Resident #98 was to have a floor mat to the side of the bed with placement verification every shift and as needed.Review of the care plan, initiated 09/10/25, revealed Resident #98 was at high risk for falls related to decreased awareness to own safety, unsteady gait and effects from…
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 F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility Self Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, the facility failed to ensure the misappropriation of narcotic pain medication did not occur for Resident #80. This affected one resident (Resident #80) out of six residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #80 revealed an admission date of 01/16/12 with diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, history of morbid obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, and gout. Review of Resident #80's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. They required setup or clean up assistance with eating and were independent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) including toileting hygiene, showers, dressing, personal hygiene, bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident #80's care plan dated 03/07/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for Resident #40. This affected one resident (Resident #40) out of six residents revealed for care plans. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of the Resident #40's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/31/25 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances and agitation, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and impulse disorder. Resident #40 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. Review of the admission documentation dated 01/29/25 revealed Resident #40 had transferred to the facility from out of state and had known behaviors including confusion, mood swings, drug and alcohol use, physically abusive and aggression, wanders mentally and physically, short- and long-term forgetfulness and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #53 received medications in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#53) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 91. Findings include: A review of medical records for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 06/19/2021. Significant diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, major depressive disorder, nicotine dependence, obesity due to excessive calories, bipolar disorder, unspecified, mild intellectual disability, type two diabetes mellitus, schizophreniform disorder, anxiety, Tourette's disorder, hypertension, and asthma. Significant orders included, Abilify 12 milligrams (mg) (antipsychotic), one tablet daily for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type and schizophreniform disorder, acidophilus 100 mg (probiotic) one capsule orally one time a day for gastrointestinal health, Colace 100 mg (stool softener), one tablet one time a day 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and observation the facility failed to ensure foods were served at a palatable temperature. This had the potential to affect 81 of the 83 residents in the facility. Two residents (#34 and #84) were identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 83. Findings include: On 08/27/24 at 11:22 A.M. observation of the lunch tray line revealed all temperatures met or exceeded requirements. The baked ham was 202 degrees Fahrenheit (F), the buttered noodles were 184 degrees F, and the cabbage was 180 degrees F. On 08/27/24 at 12:44 P.M. a test tray was assembled. The tray left the kitchen at 12:35 P.M., arrived at the unit at 12:46 P.M. Nursing began passing the unit's lunch trays at 12:47 P.M. On 08/27/24 at 12:57 P.M. all the lunch trays had been passed and the food temperatures of the test tray were taken by Dietary Manager #354. The ham was 126 degrees F, the noodles were 108 degrees F, and the cabbage was 111 degrees F. The food items all had good flavor; however, the temperatures were too low for palatability. Dietary Manager #354…
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 before2024-08-28 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters and staff interview, the facility failed to provide required 48-hour notice for last covered day of therapy, failed to provide the correct last covered day, failed to provide appeal information, and did not place the resident name or identifying number on the on the NOMNC letter. This affected three residents (#342, #343 and #344) of three reviewed for liability notices. The facility census was 83. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #342's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/02/24. A NOMNC letter revealed services were ended on 03/22/24, the last covered day (LCD). Resident #342 discharged on 03/22/24, the LCD should have been 03/21/24. The NOMNC did not have the appeal agency phone number listed and there was no resident name or identifying number on the notice. 2. Review of Resident #343's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/29/21. The resident started skilled therapy on 02/20/24. A NOMNC letter revealed services were ended on 04/19/24, the LCD. Resident #343 was discharged on 04/19/24,…
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 before2024-08-28 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to follow recommendations to monitor weights after a significant weight loss for Resident #65. This affected one resident (#65) of two residents reviewed for weight loss. The facility census was 83. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #65 revealed an initial date of admission of 10/15/22. Resident #65 was readmitted to the facility after a recent hospital stay on 04/26/24. Significant diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, presence of cerebrospinal fluid drainage device, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and congenital hydrocephalus. Significant orders included Invega six milligrams (mg) (antipsychotic) daily for psychosis, clonazepam 0.5 mg (benzodiazepine); give 0.25 mg by mouth every six hours as needed for anxiety, regular, no salt packet diet, mechanical soft/dental soft texture, thin consistency fluids and, Ensure (nutritional supplement) one can three times daily. 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 · D2024-04-11 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents with food allergies and/or food intolerances did not receive those foods at meals. This affected one resident (#15) out of three residents reviewed for food allergies/intolerances. The facility identified ten residents (#7, #8, #15, #41, #42, #44, #47, #60, #64, and #79) as having known food allergies. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 11/29/21. Diagnoses included type two diabetes with foot ulcer, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition. Resident#15 was on a regular diet with mechanical soft/dental soft texture. Resident #15 was cognitively intact and required setup or cleanup assistance for eating. Resident #15 had a known allergen to cheese. Review of care plan, initiated 02/28/24, revealed the Resident #15 had a potential for allergic reaction with a known allergy to cheese with a goal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review revealed the facility failed to ensure resident room temperatures were maintained at a comfortable level for residents and between 71 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit as required. This had the potential to affect 49 residents (#1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #12, #13, #16, #17, #19, #20, #21, #22, #24, #29, #30, #31, #32, #34, #35, #36, #37, #39, #43, #49, #55, #56, #58, #59, #62, #64, #65, #67, #71, #73, #74, #75, #77, #78, #81, #82, #84, #85, #95, and #97) who resided on the Elmwood and [NAME] units and one additional resident (#26) who resided on the Magnolia Unit identified through interview. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: Review of the facility room temperature logs revealed the following temperatures obtained on 02/04/24, 02/05/24 and 02/06/24: On 02/04/24 at 8:00 A.M. 37 residents (32 rooms) had room temperatures below 71.0 degrees F: room [ROOM NUMBER] - 66.6 degrees F room [ROOM NUMBER] - 66.2 degrees F room [ROOM NUMBER] -…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 27 citations
- Potential for harm · F2022-06-27 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — widespreadHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
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 review of the resident council meeting minutes and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident concerns were resolved in an appropriate manner and time frame. This affected five residents (Resident's #7, #27, #37, #66, #73) who resided on the Elmwood unit, 2 Resident's (#40 and #72) who resided on the Magnolia unit and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the resident council minutes for the 08/30/21 meeting revealed a concern was brought to the attention of the facility regarding nurses being rude to residents and being preoccupied. Review of the resident council follow-up form revealed the action plan revealed no plan in place for the concern. Review of the follow-up form revealed a signature and date provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/23/22. Review of the resident council minutes for the 09/30/21 meeting revealed a concern was brought to the attention of the facility regarding nurses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-06-27 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure all employees were checked against the Ohio Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to or on their first day of work/hire to ensure the employee did not have a finding entered into the State Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents, or misappropriation of their property as required. This had the potential to affect all 88 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the personnel file for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #873 revealed a hire date of 12/29/20. The printed evidence of LPN #866 being checked against the NAR was not completed until 01/07/21. Review of the personnel file for State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #868 revealed a hire date of 03/30/21. The printed evidence of STNA #868 being checked against the NAR was not completed until the date the personnel file was requested for review during the survey on 06/08/22. Review of the personnel file for LPN #866 revealed a hire date of 04/26/21. 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 · F2022-06-27 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and menu spreadsheet review, the facility failed to follow the menu as written. This affected 86 residents receiving meals from the kitchen as two residents (Resident's #31 and #70) were ordered nothing-by-mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the spreadsheet for Week One Tuesday, corresponding to 06/07/22 revealed portions of the meal were to be served were as follows: baked ham, three ounces; buttered noodles, four ounces; buttered cabbage, four ounces; applesauce, four ounces; bread; one slice. Residents on a mechanical soft diet were to receive a #6-scoop of ground ham. Residents on a pureed diet were to receive a #6-scoop of pureed ham, a #8-scoop of pureed buttered noodles, a #8-scoop of pureed cabbage and a #16-scoop of pureed bread. Observation of lunch tray service on 06/07/22 starting at 11:48 A.M. revealed the temperatures of the foods to be served were taken with the facility's self-calibrating thermometer by [NAME] #814 and portion sizes were established as follows: cabbage, 197 degrees F, four ounces; buttered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-06-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and menu spreadsheet review, the facility failed to serve palatable meals at appetizing temperatures. This affected 86 residents receiving meals from the kitchen as two residents (Resident's #31 and #70) were ordered nothing-by-mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the spreadsheet for Week One Tuesday, corresponding to 06/07/22 revealed portions of the meal were to be served were as follows: baked ham, three ounces; buttered noodles, four ounces; buttered cabbage, four ounces; applesauce, four ounces; bread; one slice. Observation of lunch tray service on 06/07/22 starting at 11:48 A.M. revealed the temperatures of the foods to be served were taken with the facility's self-calibrating digital thermometer by [NAME] #814 and were as follows: ham, 197 degrees Fahrenheit (F), 1 slice; cabbage, 197 degrees F, four ounces; buttered noodles, 169 degrees F, three ounces; pureed noodles, 146 degrees F, #12-scoop; pureed cabbage, 149 degrees F, #12-scoop; ground ham, 173 degrees F, #10-scoop. The portion sizes observed were verified by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-06-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary kitchen. This affected 86 residents receiving meals from the kitchen as two residents (Resident's #31 and #70) were ordered nothing-by-mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 06/06/22 from 8:59 A.M. to 9:21 A.M. with Regional Dietary Manager (RDM) #906 revealed the following concerns: • There was black material on the inner lip of the ice machine. • Floors were dirty and greasy throughout the kitchen with a higher build-up of grime by the oven and food preparation area. • The hoods had a greasy build-up. • The slicer was under a plastic bag. When the bag was lifted, the slicer was noted to be dirty with meat pieces still on it. • In the cooler, a rack with trays of fruit bowls was present. The plastic lids on the bowls were too small so they sat directly inside the bowls on top of the food that was ready to eat. Interview with RDM #906 verified the above areas of concern at the time of observation. RDM #906…
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 · F2022-06-27 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility administration failed to ensure its resources were effectively and efficiently managed to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of all 88 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The following concerns were identified throughout the duration of the annual survey: 1. Record review was conducted of employee personnel files which revealed seven employees (Certified Nurse Aides (CNA's) #888 and #901, Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN's) #866 and #873, Registered Nurse (RN) #902, State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #868, and the Administrator) of eleven employee files sampled were not screened/checked through the Ohio Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation. Interview on 06/09/22 at 7:48 A.M. with Human Resources Director #908 confirmed screening/checking employees through the Ohio Nurse Aide Registry for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation was not completed for CNA's #888 and #901, LPN's #866 and #873, RN…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-06-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement appropriate infection control practices during a global pandemic. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: 1. Observation on 06/07/22 Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #830 was observed sitting at the nurses' station with her N95 mask below her mouth. Interview with CNA #830 said she had just lowered her mask so she could breathe. She confirmed she should be wearing her N95 mask at all times while in the patient care areas. 2. Interview with the Administrator on 06/08/22 at 3:15 P.M. revealed Resident #73 had tested positive for COVID-19. The Administrator said she was asymptomatic and does not have a roommate. The facility is putting up a zip barrier in the doorway to her room for quarantine purposes and an isolation supply cart is being placed outside of her room. Her room had a sink and its own bathroom so they would not have to move her. The receptionist was currently sending out the robocalls notifying the family/responsible…
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 · F2022-06-27 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure antibiotic usage was tracked for effectiveness. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: Review of the facility's antibiotic stewardship logs from April through June 2022 revealed they tracked the onset date of the infection, the type of infection, the antibiotic the resident was placed on, and if they were placed in isolation. No information was recorded regarding the dosage and duration of the antibiotics or if the antibiotic was to be administered orally, topically, or intravenously. No information was documented regarding if any lab work was obtained or what infection assessment tool or management algorithm was being used for tracking. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), who was also the facility's Infection Preventionist, on 06/13/22 at 10:15 A.M. revealed she received her Infection Preventionist certificate on 09/12/21. When asked what system the facility was using to track antibiotic usage…
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 · F2022-06-27 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a clean, functional, and well-maintained environment. This affected 22 residents (Resident's #3, #9, #10, #12, #13, #15, #18, #19, #23, #26, #35, #36, #39, #56, #72, #75, #76, #86, #88, #89, #290, and #388) and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Observation on 06/06/22 at 11:45 A.M. of Resident #290's bathroom revealed dried feces all over the toilet bowl. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #896 verified the dried fecal matter at the time of discovery. 2. Observation on 06/06/22 at 10:39 A.M. of the carpet located on the Magnolia Unit in the common area, adjacent to the central nursing station, revealed multiple large stains. Housekeeping Supervisor (HSKS) #818 verified the findings at the time of discovery. 3. Observation on 06/06/22 at 11:15 A.M. of Resident #35's room, revealed a large spot of small white granules, identified as thickener, located near the end of her bed. The Director of Nursing (DON) verified the findings at the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of physician orders not being followed and significant weight loss occurring for seven residents (Residents #24, #29, #31, #49, #53, #56, and #67) of nine residents on weekly weights. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance, tremors, psychosis, paranoid personality disorder, and hallucinations. Review of the physician's orders revealed on 06/08/22 the dietician added the nutritional supplement of Ensure Plus to be administered two times a day. On 06/15/22 weekly weights were ordered for Resident #24 Review of the weights for Resident #24 revealed an admission weight obtained on 03/10/22 of 205.8 pounds. His weight on 06/04/22 was 185 pounds indicating a severe weight loss of 10.11% over three months. Weights were obtained on 03/17/22, 04/02/22, 04/03/22, 05/01/22, 05/02/22, 05/05/22, 06/03/22,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-06-27 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure systems were in place for monitoring weights, implementing nutritional interventions to prevent avoidable weight loss, monitoring the percentage of supplements consumed, assessing weight loss, assessing residents for use of adaptive equipment, assisting residents with eating, notifying the physician of severe avoidable weight loss, and providing palatable food for the residents. This resulted in severe avoidable weight loss affecting five residents (Resident's #24, #29, #49, #53, and #56) of eight residents reviewed for nutrition. Two residents (Resident's #24 and #29) experienced severe avoidable weight loss over a three-month period of time and three residents (Resident's #49, #53, and #56) experienced a severe avoidable weight loss over a six-month period of time. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #24 was admitted 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.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-27 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed foods were prepared to the appropriate consistency. This affected eight residents (Resident's #6, #8, #12, #18, #29, #53, #60, #68 and #73) receiving a pureed diet. The facility census was 88 residents. Findings include: Observation on 06/07/22 starting at 11:12 A.M. of purees with Regional Dietary Manager (RDM) #906 and [NAME] #814 revealed no recipe was available during the observation. [NAME] #814 stated the recipe book was in there, referring to the kitchen office. At 11:35 A.M. [NAME] #814 placed a sixth pan full of ham slices into the food processor with an unmeasured amount of pork gravy. The ham slices were noted to still have the skin on them. After blending [NAME] #814 placed the mixture into the sixth pan indicating the puree was completed and ready for service. Upon taste of the mixture there were bits of the ham skin palpable on the tongue and bits of ham skin were also observed in the mixture sampled. RDM #906 then directed [NAME] #814 to re-blend the mixture. During the observed conversation with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was respected regarding Foley catheter use. This affected one (Resident #81) of four residents (Residents #67, #29, #77, #81) reviewed for Foley catheters. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, stroke, heart disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, anxiety, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (a condition where a person lacks bladder control due to brain, spinal cord, or nerve problems), and urinary retention. Resident #81 required use of a Foley catheter (a tube inserted into the resident's bladder to drain urine) due to neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder and urinary retention. Observation on 06/09/22 at 9:47 A.M. revealed Resident #81 was in a wheelchair in the hallway being taken to therapy. The resident's Foley catheter drainage bag did not have a privacy…
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 before2022-06-27 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) was issued as required for Resident #89. This affected one (Resident #89) of three (Resident's #85, #89 and #900) reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of Resident #89's Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form for skilled services ending 01/06/22 and signed 01/04/22 revealed there was no ABN provided at the time of the NOMNC. Review of the medical record for Resident #89 revealed and admission date of 08/23/21. Medicare Part A services ended on 01/06/22, and Resident #89 continued to live in the facility until discharge on [DATE]. Interview on 06/08/22 at 2:10 P.M. with Social Service Designee (SSD) #904 verified Resident #89 received a NOMNC but was not provided an ABN as required. SSD #904 stated she was untrained in Medicare or skilled care services related to notification of benefits and in her role as a social service designee.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-06-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) #222577, the facility failed to timely report to the State Agency an allegation of abuse involving Resident's #3 and #49 as required. This affected two (Resident's #3 and #49) and had the potential to affect all 88 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 10/12/20 and diagnoses including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, cerebral infarction, diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, hypertension, epilepsy, and personal history of adult physical and sexual abuse. Review of a quarterly Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/12/22, revealed Resident #3 had intact cognition. The assessment indicated Resident #3 was independent and required some staff set-up assistance with activities of daily living. Interview on 06/06/22 at 12:02 P.M. with Resident #3 revealed an allegation about Resident #49 who made negative comments to Resident #3 during the previous week at 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-06-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the care plans for Resident's #72 and #76 were comprehensive to include respiratory care and management. This affected two (Residents #72 and #76) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility reported 15 (Resident's #3, #10, #28, #31, #35, #56, #58, #59, #62, #63, #70, #72, #75, #76 and #85) who received respiratory care. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #72 revealed an admission date of 10/21/20 and diagnoses of sleep apnea, morbid severe obesity due to excess calories, essential primary hypertension, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #72 had intact cognition. Resident #72 required extensive two staff assistance for bed mobility, dressing and toileting, extensive one staff assistance for personal hygiene, was dependent on two staff assistance for transfers,…
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 before2022-06-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure weekly weights were obtained per physician orders for three residents (Resident's #29, #31, #67) of nine residents reviewed for weekly weights. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, neuromuscular disorder of the bladder, mild intellectual disabilities, and hypothyroidism. Review of the physician's orders revealed on 05/20/22 weekly weights were ordered. Review of Resident #29's weights revealed his admission weight was 222.6 pounds and was not obtained until 03/29/22. His next weight was on 04/06/22 and was 217.0 pounds, on 05/04/22 his weight was 209.0 pounds, and then on 06/09/22 his weight was 200.2 pounds. Weights were not obtained per facility policy upon admission and weekly weights were not obtained as ordered on 05/20/22. 2. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses…
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 · D2022-06-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed and dated per acceptable standards of nursing practice for Resident's #72 and #76. This affected two (Resident's #72 and #76) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility reported 15 (Resident's #3, #10, #28, #31, #35, #56, #58, #59, #62, #63, #70, #72, #75, #76 and #85) who received oxygen therapy. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #72 revealed an admission date of 10/21/20 and diagnoses of sleep apnea, morbid severe obesity due to excess calories, essential primary hypertension, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #72's physician orders revealed an order dated 07/17/21 for oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula (NC) every day and night shift related to hypoxemia. Observation on 06/06/22 at 11:23 A.M. revealed Resident #72's oxygen NC was not dated. Interview with Resident #72 at the time of the observation stated it was a long time ago when the oxygen tubing was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-05-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary kitchen environment. This affected 94 residents of 94 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified two residents, Resident #65 and Resident #87, as not receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 96. Findings include: 1. Observation and tour of the kitchen with Dietary Manager (DM) #500 on 05/13/19 from 8:30 A.M. to 8:47 A.M. revealed inside the walk-in cooler, a bag of turkey slices dated 03/20/19; a bag of shredded cheddar cheese not wrapped, labeled or dated and left open to air; a bag of ham slices dated 04/19/19; and another bag of deli meat dated 05/06/19. Inside the walk-in freezer, two gallon plastic bags contained meatballs not labeled or dated. In the preparation area, the slicer and large mixer were unwrapped and not in use; the mixer had a twist tie inside of it. The top of the oven was covered in crumbs and grease. Interview with DM #500 verified the above…
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 · F2019-05-16 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — widespreadHave policies on smoking.
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 ensure a comprehensive smoking policy was in place to address both smoking and non-smoking residents at the facility. This affected all 96 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: Observations of the facility's indoor smoking room on 05/13/19 and 05/14/19 during the annual survey revealed residents constantly going in and out of the room. A sign on the door of the smoking room indicated it was only closed for cleaning for part of the morning each day. No listed smoking times were observed. Interview on 05/14/19 at 2:11 P.M. with the Administrator revealed the indoor smoking room was open to residents 24 hours a day except for when it was closed for cleaning and verified there were no set smoking times at the facility. The Administrator shared supervised smokers went out to smoke every two hours but could not provide these times to the surveyor. The Administrator confirmed the facility smoking policy from December 2009 was the only policy available for review and verified this policy did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-05-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide an acceptable noise level for the residents residing in the hall with the smoking room. This affected eight residents residing in the hall (Resident #12, Resident#13, Resident #15 Resident #25, Resident #44, Resident #56, Resident #63 and Resident #345). The facility census was 96. Findings include: Observation on the initial tour on 05/13/19 at 8:10 A.M. revealed an indoor smoking room with access to an unsecured outside area. A small detachable alarm was attached to the door to the smoking room and to the door outside. Both alarms emitted a loud high-pitched tone when activated to alert staff of residents exiting the building. There were buttons on the front of the alarms to punch in a code to void activation of the alarm. Residents entered and exited the smoking room freely at all times. A sign on the smoking room door stated the room was closed from 11:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. daily for cleaning. Intermittent observations 05/13/19 to 05/16/19 revealed the alarm was activated repeatedly by residents entering 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 · Ecited before2019-05-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report alleged misappropriation for Resident #59, and alleged verbal abuse from Resident #59 towards Resident #13. This affected two of two residents reviewed for abuse and misappropriation. The facility census was 96. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #59 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including drug or chemical induced diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity with alcohol abuse with alcohol induced anxiety disorder. Minimum Data Summary (MDS) 3.0 assessment of 03/31/19 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and independent for activities of daily living (ADL). Care plan of 03/14/19 revealed care areas for use of psychoactive medications, verbally abusive behavior (updated 05/13/19) and mood problems with goals and interventions appropriate to meet the needs of the resident. Interview with Resident #59 on 05/13/19 1:41 P.M. revealed the resident reported his cell phone went missing over the weekend.…
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 before2019-05-16 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their policy for misappropriation. This affected one (Resident #59) of one resident reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 96. Findings include Record review for Resident #59 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including drug or chemical induced diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity with alcohol abuse with alcohol induced anxiety disorder. Minimum Data Summary (MDS) 3.0 assessment of 03/31/19 reveled the resident was cognitively intact and independent for activities of daily living (ADL). Care plan of 03/14/19 revealed care areas for use of psychoactive medications, verbally abusive behavior and mood problems with goals and interventions appropriate to meet the needs of the resident. Interview with Resident #59 on 05/13/19 1:41 P.M. revealed the resident reported his cell phone went missing over the weekend. The resident reported it to staff (unsure of the name), and they told him it was not their…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-16 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate and report alleged misappropriation for Resident #59, and failed to report alleged verbal abuse from Resident #59 towards Resident #13. This affected two of two residents reviewed for abuse and misappropriation. Findings include 1. Record review for Resident #59 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including drug or chemical induced diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity with alcohol abuse with alcohol induced anxiety disorder. Minimum Data Summary (MDS) 3.0 assessment of 03/31/19 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and independent for activities of daily living (ADL). Care plan of 03/14/19 revealed care areas for use of psychoactive medications, verbal abusive behavior (updated 05/13/19) and mood problems with goals and interventions appropriate to meet the needs of the resident. Interview with Resident #59 on 05/13/19 1:41 P.M. revealed the resident reported his cell phone went missing over the weekend.…
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 before2019-05-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a person-centered plan of care regarding resident behaviors. This affected one resident (Resident #24) of 24 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Resident #24 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance, insomnia, atrial fibrillation, hypertension (high blood pressure), history of falls and constipation. Review of physician's orders revealed behaviors were to be documented every day shift and night shift. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired, had fluctuating inattention behaviors and had daily behaviors not directed towards others (like screaming or disruptive sounds). Resident #24 required extensive assistance for activities of daily living. A behavior care plan revised 04/08/19 revealed Resident #24 yelled out, Betty, Terry, or hey lady and did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-05-16 · 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 observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure smoking materials were appropriately secured for both supervised and unsupervised smokers. This affected two residents (Resident #12 and Resident #13) of two residents reviewed for smoking. The facility identified 28 residents that smoked (Resident #1, Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7, Resident #12, Resident #14, Resident #15, Resident #16, Resident #19, Resident #25, Resident #26, Resident #33, Resident #35, Resident #36, Resident #37, Resident #44, Resident #45, Resident #48, Resident #54, Resident #57, Resident #59, Resident #60, Resident #63, Resident #70, Resident #83, Resident #90, Resident #345, Resident #395). The facility census was 96. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/20/17 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, hemiplegia affecting right dominant side and obesity. Review of a quarterly…
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 before2019-05-16 · 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
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to adhere to infection control standards when serving meals and cleaning glucometers. This affected 5 (Residents #12, #13, #15, #61, and #63) of 5 residents observed during meal service and 1 (Resident #5) of 1 resident who receive blood sugar monitoring. Findings Include: 1. Observations with State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #626 and Registered Nurse (RN) #601 were made on 05/13/19 at 2:15 P.M. and 2:30 P.M. STNA #626 was observed passing room trays to Residents #13, #15 and Resident #61 without sanitizing hands as they opened and closed resident doors, touched bed tables and opened the tray cart where trays are transported from kitchen. STNA #626 was also observed prepping Resident #61's sandwich without wearing gloves. Interview with STNA #626 after observations revealed that staff are to sanitize hands after delivering each tray and to wear gloves when touching food. The STNA did admit to not washing hands after leaving the residents room and touching the residents sandwich without wearing gloves. Observations with RN#…
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
$74,518 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $47,200 — penalty dated 2026-05-28
- $16,801 — penalty dated 2024-06-28
- $10,517 — penalty dated 2023-12-05
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 AOM HEALTHCARE — 20 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 19 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POINTE WOODS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2017 |
| GOLDSTEIN, JEFFERY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 04/01/2017 |
| SHERMAN, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 33% | since 04/01/2017 |
| SHERMAN, SAMUEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 33% | since 04/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 85% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365658. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-28, 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.