Milcrest Nursing Center
730 Milcrest Drive, Marysville, OH 43040 · For profit - Individual · 50 certified beds · (937) 642-1026 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (39) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $68,006 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-13)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (71%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 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 | 2.4% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 22.5% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.6% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 35.9% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.7% | 94.5% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.7% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 42.1% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.4% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.7% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
57.7% 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 51 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.3% 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 23 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 | 57.7%CMS range 44.6–67.8 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 7.5–14.8 | 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 | 78.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 56.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 65.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.5%CMS range 3.7–13.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 50 beds and averages 46.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.04 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.16 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 71% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
39 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 27 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-13 · 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 review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the facility's video surveillance, closed medical record review, review of the hospital records, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from neglect when the Director of Nursing (DON) and License Practical Nurse (LPN) #21 failed to adequately assess, monitor, and timely notify the physician of the resident's condition in accordance with professional standards of practice. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy, serious life-threatening harm, and ultimate death when on 05/24/24 at 5:13 P.M., Resident #15 had a change in condition and at 5:54 P.M., State Tested Nursing Aides (STNA) #34 and #58 found Resident #15 grabbing at his chest, unresponsive to verbal commands, and in respiratory distress and alerted the DON to the resident's change of condition. There were no ongoing assessments during the evening shift and no notification to the physician for the need 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-13 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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, review of the facility's video surveillance, staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, review of the facility policy, and review of the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, the facility failed to timely initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or contact EMS timely for one resident (#15), who was found unresponsive, without a pulse or respirations, and who was identified as a Full Code status. In addition, once initiated, the facility failed to provide adequate CPR techniques for Resident #15. This resulted in Real and Present Danger, serious life-threatening harm, and ultimate death when Resident #15 did not receive CPR for nine minutes after he was discovered with no vital signs, EMS was not contacted for assistance until ten minutes after the resident was discovered, and when CPR was initiated, staff performed chest compressions while Resident #15…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0573 — isolatedLet each resident or the resident's legal representative access or purchase copies of all the resident's records.
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, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident or resident representative had timely access to their medical records upon request. This affected one (Resident #49) out of one resident reviewed for a records request. The facility census was 48. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 04/06/26 and discharge date of 05/05/26. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, dementia, anxiety, depression, edema, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 05 indicating impaired cognition.Review of an email correspondence dated 05/12/26 between the facility staff and the regional office revealed the request for medical records was approved. Review of an email correspondence dated 05/18/26 between the facility Administration staff and Resident #49's family revealed pricing was $206.32 for the resident's medical records…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately completed for a fall with major injury. This affected one (Resident #49) out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 48. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 04/06/26 and discharge date of 05/05/26. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, dementia, anxiety, depression, edema, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 05 indicating impaired cognition and Resident #49 required partial to moderate assistance for activities of daily living and supervision/touching assistance with mobility. Review of the plan of care dated 04/13/26 revealed Resident #49 was at risk for falls and potential injury. Interventions included non-skid strips to be placed in front of the recliner left side of the bed…
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 before2026-06-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were updated in the medical record and care plan after a fall. This affected one (Resident #41) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 48. Findings include Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 05/26/26. Diagnoses included dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, respiratory failure diabetes, right femur fracture (prior to admission).Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 and was dependent with activities of daily living and required substantial and maximum assist with mobility. Review of the plan of care dated 06/05/26 revealed Resident #41 was at risk for falls and had interventions for therapy evaluations and treatment and have commonly used articles in reach. No interventions had been added to the fall care plan since 06/05/26. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure showers were completed as scheduled. This affected one (Resident #20) out of three residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. The facility census was 48.Findings Included:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #20 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, anxiety disorder, benign neoplasm of the rectum, type two diabetes, hypokalemia, depression, hypertension, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 and normal cognitive function. Further review confirmed the resident required substantial/max assistance with tub/shower transfers.Review of Resident #20's Care Plan revised 05/05/26 revealed the resident required assistance from staff to meet Actives of Daily Living (ADL)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the medical record. This affected one (Resident #49) out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 48. Findings includeReview of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 04/06/26 and discharge date of 05/05/26. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, dementia, anxiety, depression, edema, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 05 indicating impaired cognition and required partial to moderate assistance for activities of daily living and supervision /touching assistance with mobility. Review of the plan of care dated 04/13/26 revealed Resident #49 was at risk for falls and potential injury. Interventions included non-skid strips to be placed in front of the recliner left side of the bed and follow evening routine in bed by 7:00 P.M. to 7:30P.M. after…
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 before2026-05-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate incontinence care. This affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 44. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 02/07/25. Diagnoses included transient ischemic attack, cerebral infarction, vascular dementia, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia.Review of his quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 was cognitively impaired. Resident #43 required assistance with bed mobility. Review of the Care Plan dated 04/10/26 revealed Resident #43 was frequently incontinent. Interventions included care as needed, resident with be clean, dry, and odor free, and bed in the low position.Observation on 05/14/26 at 7:45 A.M. revealed Resident #43 was lying in bed with no sheets or pillow. His pajama top was wet and the room had a strong odor or urine.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received their showers as scheduled. This deficient practice affected two (Resident #16 and Resident #37) of three residents reviewed for shower assistance. The facility census was 49.Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 10/28/24 and diagnoses of muscle weakness, anxiety, dysarthria and anarthria, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), tobacco use, and dementia.Review of Resident #16's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident required partial to moderate assistance with showering and bathing.Review of Resident #16's care plan, last revised 02/09/26, revealed the resident required staff assistance to meet activities of daily living (ADL) needs related to dysarthria, COPD, malnutrition, and dementia, with interventions to assist the resident with bathing as needed and per…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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
Base on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure linen and personal clothing was not soiled for one, (Resident #16). This affected one (Resident #16) of three residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The facility census was 49.Findings Include:Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/25/25, diagnoses included acquired absence of right left below the knee, chronic venous hypertension with ulcer and inflammation of the left lower extremity, cellulitis, obesity, edema, anemia, hypothyroidism, bilateral blindness, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, gastro-esophageal reflux, acquired absence of right and left fingers, muscle weakness, Type II Diabetes, and osteomyelitis.Review of Residents #16's care plan last revised on 01/16/26 revealed the resident required assistance from staff to meet ADLs needs due to a right below the knee amputation, diabetic neuropathy, complete bilateral blindness, and amputation of all fingers except of bilateral thumbs. Interventions include assisting the resident 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 · F2025-04-10 · 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 observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe storage of food in the kitchen. This had potential to affect all facility residents as they all ate food from the kitchen. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Observation and interview on 04/07/25 at 10:21 A.M. of the freezer with Kitchen Manager (KM) #66 revealed a bag of tater tots and a bag of crinkle fries were open and left undated. A bag of hot dogs had a hold in it and was left open to air. A box of garlic bread was left open to air and uncovered. In the fridge two undated carry out boxes with leftovers were present. One contained cake and another had breakfast food. In the dry storage are there were two cans with dents near the seals, including apple pie filling and apple sauce. KM #66 confirmed findings and acknowledged food should be dated and sealed/covered after opening. KM #66 stated the facility uses dented cans of food. Observation and interview on 04/09/25 at 11:51 A.M. with Kitchen Consultant (KC) #504 confirmed a container of shredded cheese was in the service…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bathroom door opened and closed properly. This affected one (#08) resident out of sixteen residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #08 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder and fibromyalgia. Review of Resident #08's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact,. Resident #08 was independent with personal hygiene. Resident #08 required supervision with toilet transfers and walking ten feet. Observation of Resident #08's room on 04/07/25 at 1:59 P.M. revealed Resident #08's sliding door to her bathroom was difficult to open and close because it was stuck on the track. Interview with Resident #08 on 04/07/25 at 1:59 P.M. revealed she could not open and close her bathroom door because it would get stuck. Observation of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 27 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · 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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a care plan for elopement and the use of a Wanderguard. This affected one (#25) out of one residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident #25's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, high blood pressure, diabetes and depression. Review of an elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] identified the resident to be at risk for elopement. An interventions on the assessment included the use of a Wanderguard. Review of the care plan dated 02/06/25 did not identify the resident to be at risk for elopement or identify the us of the Wanderguard. Observation of Resident #25 on 04/07/25 at 02:17 P.M. revealed she was wearing a Wanderguard on her leg. Review of policy titled Wanderguard Devices, dated 06/19/17, revealed a potential for elopement plan of care will be implemented including Wanderguard as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 medical record, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were completed quarterly and included participation of the interdisciplinary team and the resident/responsible party. This affected two (#1 and #13) residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 06/12/23. Diagnoses included vascular dementia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and chronic kidney disease stage three. Review of Significant Change Data Set Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had cognitive impairment. This resident was assessed to be independent with eating, require substantial assistance with toileting and transfers, and partial assistance with bathing and dressing. Review of the care conferences for the last 12 months revealed Resident #1 received a care conference on 03/10/24, 06/14/24, and 09/24/24 with no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · 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
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain hospice documentation for one (#11) of one resident reviewed for Hospice. The facility identified three residents receiving hospice care (#11, #14 and #37). The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 11/08/24. Diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, malnutrition, muscle weakness Parkinson's disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease. Review of Hospice election and admission paperwork dated 02/10/25 revealed Resident #11 was admitted to hospice care. Review of the hospice communication binder for Resident #11 contained no documentation from hospice visits. Interview on 04/10/25 at 9:36 A.M. with Unit Manager (UM) #511 confirmed the hospice communication binder for Resident #11 had no documentation from visits. UM #511 revealed they had blank communication forms in the binder. The electronic medical record and paper medical record were reviewed and found no documented communication…
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 F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pressure reducing interventions as recommended to aide in the healing of a pressure ulcer for one (#08) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review the medical record revealed Resident #08 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included pressure ulcer of sacral regional stage three, pressure ulcer of left hip stage three, adult failure to thrive, malignant neoplasm of right female breast, polyneuropathy, anxiety disorder, iron deficiency anemia, type two diabetes mellitus, and fibromyalgia. Review of Resident #08's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #08 required supervision with rolling left and right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting, sitting to standing, and transfers. Resident #08 had one stage three pressure ulcer that was present upon admission to the facility. Review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided for one (#30) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 01/28/25. Diagnoses included vascular dementia,, stage three kidney disease, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was cognitively intact and required assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 02/02/25 revealed Resident #30 needs assistance from staff for ADL needs with interventions to assist with bathing as needed. The care plan did not specify assistance with nail care. Review progress notes dated 02/01/25 to 04/10/25 revealed no notes related to toe nail care or podiatry services. Review of skin and shower sheets from 02/01/25 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 · D2025-04-10 · 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 review of the medical record and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions in a timely manner after a significant weight loss. This affected one (#29) of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 02/20/24. Diagnoses included with fracture of superior rim of right pubis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 had severe cognitive impairment. The resident was assessed to be independent with eating. Review of the care plan dated 04/04/25 revealed Resident #29 was at risk for altered nutrition related to medical diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, encouraged intake as needed, obtain and monitor laboratory work as needed, obtain weight as ordered, provide and serve diet as ordered, and provide…
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 F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 medical record, pharmacy recommendations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to timely implement pharmacy recommendations for one (#29) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 02/20/24. Diagnoses included with fracture of superior rim of right pubis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and alzheimer's disease. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 had cognitive impairment. Review of the monthly medication review (MMR) dated May 2024 revealed Resident #29 was recommended laboratory (lab) tests of magnesium, complete metabolic panel (CMP), thyroid stimulation hormone (TSH), and complete blood count (CBC). Review of the physician orders revealed no order was placed for the magnesium, CMP, TSH, or CBC for Resident #29 per the recommendation of the MMR. Review of the physician order dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received dental care after breaking a tooth. This affected one (#05) resident out of two residents reviewed for dental care. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #05 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, protein calorie malnutrition, iron deficiency anemia, constipation, anxiety disorder, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #05's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #05 was independent with eating and required set up assistance with oral hygiene. Resident #05 had obvious or likely cavities or broken natural teeth. Review of Resident #05's census information dated 04/10/25 revealed Resident #05 was on Medicaid. Review of Resident #05's oral cavity assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #05 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record reviews, observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were followed during medication administration. This affected one (#197) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #197 revealed an admission date of 04/02/25. Diagnoses included bacteremia, end stage renal disease (ESRD), and atrial fibrillation. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #197 had intact cognition. Review of the care plan dated 04/08/25 revealed Resident #197 was at risk for infection related to indwelling medical device, open wound and central vein catheter (CVC). Interventions included to wear gown and gloves when providing high-contact resident care activities. Review of the physician order date 04/05/25 revealed Resident #197 was ordered enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) related to indwelling devices…
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 · D2024-06-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), and policy review, the facility failed to timely report allegations of neglect to the State Survey Agency and Local Law Enforcement. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 47 residents. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, mesothelioma (an aggressive and rare form of cancer that usually occurs in the thin layer of tissue that lines the lungs or the abdomen), and respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident #15 died on [DATE] at 12:50 A.M. at the emergency room. Review of the physician orders for Resident #15 revealed an order dated [DATE] for the resident to be a full code. Review of Resident #15's medical record revealed there was no documentation of a blood pressure reading or the inability to obtain blood pressure. There was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-23 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely notify residents and responsible parties of a change in condition. This affected two (#10 and #80) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with 06/02/23 with diagnoses that include chronics respiratory failure, pneumothorax, need for assistance with personal care, and chronic venous hypertension with ulcer of the left lower extremity. Review of the weekly wound tracking logs for July and August 2023 for Resident #10 revealed on 07/07/23 Resident #10 had a stage two pressure ulcer (partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis) to the left buttocks that resolved on 07/14/23. Further review revealed Resident #10 had a stage two pressure ulcer on the coccyx beginning 07/24/23 and continued until 08/11/23 when the wound healed. On 08/18/23, Resident #10 was again documented 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 · Dcited before2023-08-23 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 resident care conferences were held with residents and resident representatives to allow for input into the resident's plan of care. This affected two (#60 and #90) of six residents reviewed for care planning conferences. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident # 60's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery, dysphagia, aphasia, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes, and history of falling. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was assessed with intact cognition. Further review of Resident #60's medical record revealed the facility had two care planning conferences since admission on [DATE] that were held on 06/30/22 and on 07/03/23. There was no documentation of the facility holding care planning conferences during quarterly review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (#60) of one residents observed for medication storage. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of Resident # 60's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery, dysphagia, aphasia, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes, and history of falling. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #60's medication orders revealed Resident #60 was ordered the pain medication aspirin 81 milligrams (mg), the blood pressure medication metoprolol 12.5 mg, the stool softener Miralax 17 grams, the antidepressant Zoloft 50 mg, and the supplement vitamin D3 50 micrograms (mcg) scheduled daily between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.; the supplement cranberry…
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 · D2022-05-26 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an advanced directive was signed by the physician on the hard chart. This affected one resident (#34) out of 18 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 04/09/22. Diagnoses included cognitive communication deficit, type II diabetes, atrial fibrillation, congenital myopathy, cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #34 required extensive assistance of two people for transfers, bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and bathing. Review of the Care Plan dated 04/11/22 revealed Resident #34 had a Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care Arrest (DNRCCA) in place. Interventions included the facility would review code status annual and as needed…
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 before2022-05-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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 resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected two residents (#38 and #20) out of five residents reviewed for environment. The census was 45. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/23/22 at 3:06 P.M. of Resident #38's room revealed the bed linens were visibly soiled. The fitted sheet covering the resident's mattress had areas of brown discoloration starting at the middle of the bed which continued to the foot of the bed. The spots appeared as fingerprints and smears. There were also brown particles, appearing as dirt, located on the fitted sheet. Observation on 05/24/22 at 1:28 P.M. of Resident #38's bed linens revealed the bed linens were unchanged from the previous observation on 05/23/22. The same brown discolorations spots were visible. Interview on 05/24/22 at 1:29 P.M. State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #304 reported bed linens were changed when linens were dirty or on resident's scheduled shower days. STNA #304 verified Resident #38's bed linens were dirty and needed to be changed. 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 before2022-05-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to update a care plan for one resident (#15) out of four residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 06/30/21 with diagnoses including but not limited to, dementia without behavioral disturbance, Parkinson's disease, obstructive and reflux uropathy, and repeated falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine, indicating Resident #15 was cognitively impaired. Resident #15 required extensive assistance of two people for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 01/19/22 revealed Resident #15 was at risk for falls. Interventions included side rails to assist with bed mobility and positioning, perimeter mattress, non-skid footwear to be worn at all times, physical therapy to evaluate and treat, ensure…
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 · D2022-05-26 · 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were utilized as identified in the plan of care. This affected one (#13) of four resident reviewed for falls. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include hemiplegia, diabetes mellitus type two, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bipolar, anxiety, depression, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was rarely to never understood. The resident was totally dependent of two people for bed mobility and transfers. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was at moderate risk for falls. Review of the plan of care, date initiated 10/05/20, revealed Resident #13 was at risk for falls and potential injury, related to incontinence, lack of coordination, a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-26 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was stabilized. This affected one resident (#4) out of of two residents reviewed for urinary catheter. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 08/10/21. Diagnoses included sepsis, methicillin resistant staphylococcus bacteremia (MRSA), obstructive reflux uropathy, chronic osteomyelitis to right ankle and foot, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, hypertension, systolic congestive and diastolic congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, obstructive uropathy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two plus persons for bed mobility and transfers. The resident required one-person extensive assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene.…
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 · D2022-05-26 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to assess a resident upon return from dialysis. This affected one resident (#38) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease stage four, noncompliance with medication regime, weakness, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes mellitus type two Review of an the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Resident #38 received dialysis at the facility within the last 14 days. Review of the plan of care dated 04/20/22, revealed Resident #38 received dialysis at a contracted dialysis center located in the community on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Review of a document titled, Hemodialysis Communication Form, dated 05/10/22, 05/11/22, 05/13/22, 05/16/22, 05/18/22, and 05/20/22, revealed the facility utilized a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-05-22 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure food was served at appropriate temperatures. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents. The census was 37. Findings include: Interview with Resident #35 on 05/19/19 at 2:20 P.M. revealed his meal is never hot and he has been told there was not a microwave to heat up his meal. Observation of the breakfast meal on 05/20/19 at 8:07 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #34 revealed the temperature of the fired eggs was 95 degrees and the sausage links were 106 degrees. DM #34 utilized a facility thermometer to check the temperatures. Interview with DM #34 on 05/20/19 at 8:10 A.M. verified the meal was cold. Review of policy entitled Food Preparation dated 06/20/17 revealed all dietary staff will ensure all foods are held at appropriate temperature for hot foods at greater than 135 degrees.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-05-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review and staff interview the facility failed to monitor and test for Legionella in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents. Findings include: Review of the Legionella Policy and Procedure, revision dated 05/16/19 revealed the facility was expected to implement a water management program that included control measures such as physical controls, temperature management, disinfectant level control, visual inspections, and environmental testing for pathogens. Testing protocols and acceptable ranges for control measures, and document the results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits are not maintained Interview with the Administrator on 05/21/19 at 4:00 P.M. confirmed the facility had not been monitoring water temperatures, chemical levels, flushing the lines, or monitoring for pathogens.
- Potential for harm · E2019-05-22 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews and review of the activity calendar the facility failed to ensure an ongoing activity program was provided for the residents, failed to ensure there were activities provided in the evenings and also failed to ensure participation for activities were documented. This affected four (#13, #15, #32, and #35) of four residents reviewed during the annual survey for activities. The census was 37. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of care plan dated 01/22/19 revealed he had little to no involvement in activities and was at risk for psychosocial well…
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 · D2019-05-22 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 record review and staff interview the facility failed to notify resident's representatives of transfer to the hospital. This affected one (#36) resident of two reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility also failed to notify the Long- Term Care Ombudsman of transfers to the hospital. This affected two (#6 and #36) of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 37. Findings include: 1. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility 10/25/18 with a diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, anxiety disorder, depression and shortness of breath. Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE] to a local hospice company after a brief stay in the hospital. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 had severe cognitive impairment. Her functional status was listed as supervise one person assist for all activities of daily living. Review of the progress note dated 05/11/19 revealed the resident was sitting her wheelchair in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-05-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to have quarterly care conferences for residents and failed to have the proper staff attend the care conferences. This affected three Residents (#7, #13, and #35) of 16 reviewed during the investigative phase of the survey. The facility census was 37. Findings include: 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute osteomyelitis of right radius and ulna, type II diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, chronic pain syndrome, opioid dependence, chronic obstructive disease, skin graft infection and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was cognitively intact. His functional status was listed as independent for all transfers and ambulation. Interview with Resident #7 on 05/19/19 at 2:00 P.M. revealed the facility did not hold quarterly care conferences and he wished they would. He revealed the facility did not have a social…
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 · D2019-05-22 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to follow recommendations for restorative therapy. This affected one (#35) of one resident for restorative therapy. The facility identified seven residents who currently receive restorative care. The census was 37 residents. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of discharge recommendations from Physical therapy (PT) dated 09/12/18 revealed ROM/strengthening of the left leg. Review of discharge recommendations from Occupational Therapy (OT) dated 11/01/18 revealed restorative for Range of Motion (ROM) 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 · D2019-05-22 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure physicians orders were followed to hold blood pressure medication for a resident prior to receiving dialysis. This affected one (#35) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility identified two residents who attending dialysis off grounds. The census was 37. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of the care plan dated 11/08/17 revealed the resident needed dialysis due to renal failure. The intervention was to hold blood pressure medication on dialysis days. Review of progress note dated 03/27/19 at 10:10 P.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-04-10 · tag F0572 — widespreadGive residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of Resident Council minutes, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed provide ongoing communication to residents about their rights. This had potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident Council meeting minutes dated 04/29/24, 05/27/24, 06/20/24, 07/24/24, 08/2024, 09/30/24, 10/29/24, 11/27/24, 12/30/24, 01/27/25, 02/26/25, and 03/26/25 revealed no resident right was documented as being discussed. Interview on 04/10/25 at 11:30 A.M. with Resident #36 revealed staff does not review any resident rights at the Resident Council meetings. Interview on 04/10/25 at 11:49 A.M. with Activity Director #42 confirmed she was not discussing resident rights during Resident Council meetings. She revealed she had been running the meetings since 09/2024 and was informed in March 2025 of the need to discuss the rights with the residents.
“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
$68,006 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $68,006 — penalty dated 2024-06-13
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 COUNTRY CLUB REHABILITATION CAMPUS — 7 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HARRIS, JANET | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 08/01/2017 |
| HELMANDOLLAR, CHARLES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| OLSON, LYLE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $504K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365605. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.