Laurels Of Massillon, The
2000 Sherman Circle NE, Massillon, OH 44646 · For profit - Corporation · 140 certified beds · (330) 830-9988 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565, F0567, F0569)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.7% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.5% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.5% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.6% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.6% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.60 | 1.73 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.20 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
45.8% 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 96 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 72 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
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 | 45.8%CMS range 34.3–55.9 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–14.4 | 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 | 66.7% | 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 | 52.8% | 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 | 63.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.9% | 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 | 96.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.1% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 8.7%CMS range 5.3–15.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.23 | 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 140 beds and averages 132.6 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
35 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-14 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were implemented for nutrition status maintenance for Resident #148. This affected one resident (#148) of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 134. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #148 revealed an admission date of 09/09/25 with diagnoses including moderate protein calorie malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, wedge compression fracture first lumbar vertebra, and displaced fracture of medial malleolus of left tibia. Resident #148 discharged from the facility to home on [DATE]. Review of the physician orders for Resident #148 identified orders for a regular diet with regular texture and regular consistency liquids effective 09/10/25. Review of Resident #148's admission weight revealed on 09/10/25 Resident #148 weighed 152.0 pounds. Review of the nurse's progress note dated 09/10/25 at 3:23 P.M. revealed Resident #148…
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide a comprehensive, resident centered treatment plan to accommodate Resident #5's identified physical and communication needs to assist the resident in achieving and/or maintaining her highest level of well-being and dignity. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, aphasia, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, hemiplegia affecting the right side, and major depressive disorder. a. An occupational therapy treatment encounter note dated 11/20/24 revealed Resident #5 was referred for treatment for the ability to achieve increased active participation with basic activities of daily living, provide the most appropriate seating system, and for staff education. An…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-12 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide privacy during care for Resident #92. This affected one resident (#92) of two residents reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #92 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure and morbid obesity. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #92 was cognitively intact. A physician order dated 05/06/25 revealed Resident #92's coccyx was to be cleansed with wound cleanser, patted dry, Triad paste (hydrophilic paste for light-to-moderate exudate to help maintain a moist healing environment) applied to the wound bed, and covered with a foam dressing every day and as needed. On 06/05/25 at 12:10 P.M. Registered Nurse (RN) #512 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #572 were observed completing wound care for Resident #92. At the time of the observation, Resident #92 was wearing a hospital style…
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 · D2025-06-12 · 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 record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed and implemented for Resident #5. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, aphasia, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, hemiplegia affecting the right side, and major depressive disorder. a. The plan of care dated 11/20/24 and revised on 06/06/25 revealed Resident #5 had a functional ability deficit and required assistance with self care/mobility. Interventions included reporting refusals of activities of daily living care, personal hygiene, nail care, bathing, and showers to the nurse. Resident #5 preferred a shower and liked to sleep in. The plan of care dated 11/21/24 revealed Resident #5 required 24-hour care/long term…
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 before2025-06-12 · 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, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #5, who was dependent on staff assistance for activities of daily living, was bathed per preference and as scheduled to promote optimal hygiene and resident well-being. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for bathing. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, aphasia, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, hemiplegia affecting the right side, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had cognitive impairment. The assessment revealed Resident #5 required substantial to maximal assistance for bathing and personal hygiene. Review of the plan of care dated 02/28/25 revealed Resident #5 had functional ability deficits and required…
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a 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 observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide Resident #5 with speech therapy services as indicated in the plan of treatment and discharge summary. This affected one resident (#5) of three reviewed for therapy services. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, aphasia, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, hemiplegia affecting the right side, and major depressive disorder. Resident #5's speech therapy evaluation and plan of treatment dated 11/25/24 included treatment of speech, language, voice, communication and/or auditory processing. Resident #5 was referred to speech therapy due to a history of aphasia and dysarthria. The plan of treatment revealed Resident #5 was to receive speech therapy five times a week for six weeks. Review of the speech therapy treatment encounter notes from 11/25/24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was ordered the appropriate antibiotic to treat a urinary tract infection. This affected one resident (#5) of three reviewed for urinary tract infections. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, aphasia, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, hemiplegia affecting the right side, and major depressive disorder. A situation brief assessment recommendation (SBAR) dated 12/18/24 at 8:55 P.M. revealed Resident #5 had a change in condition. Urinalysis results were pulled from the system and revealed Resident #5's results were abnormal. The on-call physician was notified, and a verbal order was received for Macrobid (antibiotic) 100 milligram by mouth twice a day for seven days. The medication administration record (MAR) revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of a resident. This affected one (Resident #131) of three residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #131 revealed an admission date of 07/26/24 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, depression and hypertension. Resident #131 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #131 revealed orders dated 07/26/24 to check the wanderguard placement on his right lower extremity, send him to the emergency room if he became violent, psychiatric referral and Lorazepam 0.5 milligrams to be given one time at bedtime as needed for agitation. Review of the care plan dated 07/26/24 for Resident #131 revealed he was at risk for exit seeking and wandering related…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were screened for tuberculosis on admission. This affected one (Resident #63) out of three residents reviewed for tuberculosis screening. The facility census was 130. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #63 revealed an admission date of 08/07/24 with diagnoses including anxiety, depression and hypertension. Review of Resident #63's physician's orders for August 2024 revealed there were no physician's orders for tuberculosis screening. Review of Resident #63's medication administration record for August 2024 revealed staff never administered tuberculosis screening after admission. Interview on 12/09/24 at 9:45 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #63's tuberculosis screening was not completed after her admission in August 2024. She verified Resident #63 did not have tuberculosis screening until after a readmission in October of 2024. Review of the facility policy titled, Tuberculosis Control Plan, dated 01/03/23, revealed all first-time residents would be…
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 · D2024-06-24 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to issue refunded monies to discharged residents in a timely manner. This affected two residents (#145 and #160) of three residents reviewed for resident refunds. The total census was 130. Findings included: 1. Closed record review revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] and was discharged on 02/05/24. His payor source was Private Pay. On 06/24/24, a review of the Resident Ledger for Resident #145 revealed that a final payment was made on 03/13/24 of $19,528.00. After the facility balance was paid, Resident #145 was due a refund of $1,572.00. This was due within 30 days or by 04/13/24. The amount was approved on 05/17/24 and was paid out on 05/22/24. Interview on 06/24/24 at 1:15 P.M. with the Administrator confirmed the refund payment was issued almost six weeks late. 2. Closed record review revealed Resident #160 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-27 · 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 record review and interviews the facility failed to notify Resident #94's responsible party after a fall. This affected one resident (Resident #94) of three residents reviewed for notifications. The census was 121. Findings include: Record review of Resident #94 revealed an admission date of 04/05/22 with diagnoses including myelodyspastic syndrome, Alzheimer's Disease and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #94 was cognitively intact. Review of the progress note dated 11/28/23 and timed at 3:34 A.M. revealed Resident #94 had a fall with no injury. A note at 10:05 A.M. revealed her hand was swollen and bruised. An x-ray was ordered. A note at 12:36 P.M. revealed there was no fracture. There was no indication the responsible party was notified. Review of the Change in Condition report titled SBAR, dated 11/28/23 revealed it was not completely filled out including notification of responsible party. Review of the post-fall evaluation…
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 before2023-05-18 · 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, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control standards during Resident #56's pressure ulcer dressing change. This affected one resident (Resident #56) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, dementia, and high blood pressure. Review of the medical record revealed the resident had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer (a wound with full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon, or muscle is not exposed.) located on the coccyx which was to be treated with Triad cream and a clean dressing applied over it. Observation on 05/17/23 at 12:45 P.M. revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #315 prepared her work area and opened her dressing supplies. RN #315 then positioned Resident #56 on her right side and proceeded to unfasten the resident's incontinence brief. The resident had been incontinent of stool. RN #315…
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 before2023-05-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place per the plan of care for Resident #100. This affected one (#100) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #100 revealed an admission date of 11/16/22. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, fracture around internal prosthetic right hip joint (03/14/23), age related physical debility, difficulty in walking, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the care plan dated 11/16/22 revealed Resident #100 was at-risk for falls due to deconditioning, Alzheimer's, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and debility. Interventions included educate resident and family about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs, encourage resident to rest when they feel fatigued, provide assistive devices as needed, anti-rollbacks to wheelchair, bed in low position, mat to floor beside bed, and call light touch pad within…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-03-05 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide 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, medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pressure injuries were accurately assessed, measured and documented for Residents #13, #33, #92, and #94. This affected four residents (Residents #13, #33, #92, and #94) of five residents reviewed for pressure injuries. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #92 was admitted to the facility 10/02/15 with the diagnoses of end stage renal disease, acquired absence of right leg above the knee, diabetes, restless leg syndrome, hypertension, abnormal weight loss, injury, major depression, gout, constipation, hypothyroidism, ischemic cardiomyopathy, atherosclerotic heart disease, vascular dementia, dysphagia, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, anemia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peripheral vascular disease, and hear failure. Review of the five-day Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #92 had moderately impaired cognition and had one…
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 · E2020-03-05 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pureed food was the proper consistency. This affected one resident (Resident #92) but had the potential to affect all 13 residents (Resident #5, #9, #14, #15, #27, #31, #33, #34, #47, #77, #78, #92 and #154) who received pureed diets. Finding include: Observation on 03/02/20 at 11:51 A.M. staff gave Resident #92 a meal tray. The pureed food was on a regular plate, the food had a very thin consistency and was running all over the plate mixing into each other. An interview at this time State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #409 verified the pureed food was too runny and looked terrible on the plate. An interview on 03/02/20 at 11:57 A.M. Dietary Manger #410 verified the pureed food for Resident #92 was too runny, and she went to get him a new plate of purred food. Review of the facility policy Mechanically Altered Diet, dated 04/10, revealed mechanically altered diets would be prepared and served as prescribed by the physician. Guests would be provided with the least restrictive diet to optimize…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-03-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure food service carts were maintained in a sanitary manner. This affected all 69 residents (Resident #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #16, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #24, #28, #29, #31, #32 #40, #41, #42, #44, #45, #47, #49, #51, #52, #54, #55, #56, #57, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, #69, #70, #71, #76, #77, #80, #82, #87, #88, #89, #91, #92, #93, #94, #95, #98, #100, #102, #154, #155, #156, #157, #158, #159, #160, #161, #162, #164, and #308) who were served from the metal meal storage carts on the 100, 200 and 300 hallways. Findings include: Observation on 03/02/20 at 12:20 P.M. revealed the metal food storage cart on the 100 hallway with the residents meals was soiled with food and dried liquid. The cart had a red substance spilled on the outside of the cart, a white substance spilled on the inside of the cart on the door, and a brown sticky substance on the outside of the cart by the handle. An interview at this time State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #408 verified the carts were soiled Observation on…
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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, family interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #49 was always treated with respect and dignity. This affected one resident (Resident #49) of 32 residents reviewed in the initial sample. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, dysphagia, pneumonia, dementia, delusional disorder, low back pain, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had moderately impaired cognition and required supervision after being set-up for eating. Interview on 03/02/20 at 4:29 P.M. with Resident #49 and Family Member #500 revealed, the staff was not very nice at times. Resident #49 indicated…
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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #43's concerns regarding missing property were resolved timely. This affected one (Resident #43) of one residents reviewed for missing property. Findings include: Resident #43 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including polyneuropathy, need for assistance with personal care, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Resident #43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed her cognition was intact. Interview on 03/03/20 at 2:31 P.M. with Resident #43 revealed she was missing cell phone accessories and a gift care around Christmas time. Resident #43 revealed the concern was reported, and she had not hear anything back. Review of the facility grievance log for the last six months revealed no evidence Resident #43 had a concern regarding missing items. Review of Resident #43's Guest Satisfaction Concern/ Suggestion form dated 02/06/20, revealed the resident was missing one USB cable, 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 · Dcited before2020-03-05 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were accurate for Resident #13's wounds and Resident #104's discharge location. This affected two residents (Resident #13 and Resident #104) of 25 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. Facility census was 111. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/20/19 and diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, osteomyelitis and right heel unstageable pressure ulcer (obscured full-thickness and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because it is obscured by slough or eschar). Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #13 had three stage two pressure ulcers (partial-thickness skin loss), two unstageable pressure ulcers and two deep tissue injuries (DTI), a pressure-related injury to subcutaneous tissues under intact skin. 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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #33 and Resident #68 was offered activities to meet their activity needs and interests. This affected two (Resident #33 and Resident #68) of four residents reviewed for activities. Findings include: 1. Resident #33 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses Alzheimer's disease and muscle weakness. Resident #33's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed her cognition was severely impaired. Observation on 03/02/20 at 9:06 A.M., 03/02/20 at 2:31 P.M., 03/03/20 at 10:19 A.M., and on 03/03/10 at 2:51 P.M. revealed the resident was sitting in the common area far from being able to view the television. Resident #33 was not engaged in television or socializing with staff or residents. Resident #33's back was towards any staff walking by, and residents in her area were not conversing. Review of Resident #33's quarterly Activity Re-evaluation, dated 01/06/20, revealed the resident initiated independent…
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 before2020-03-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #33's fall precaution interventions were in place at all times. This affected one (Resident #33) of three residents reviewed for falls. Findings include: Resident #33 was admitted on with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and muscle weakness. Resident #33's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed her cognition was severely impaired, she required two person extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and one person extensive assistance with dressing. Resident #33's comprehensive care plan related to being at risk for falls, revised 06/24/19, revealed the resident should wear non-skid foot wear when out of bed, and to encourage the resident to wear appropriate footwear as needed. Observation on 03/02/20 at 9:06 A.M. revealed Resident #33 was sitting in her wheelchair in a common area with socks that were not non-skid. Interview on 03/02/20 at 11:09 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-05 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 and staff interview the facility failed to implement non-pharmacological intervention prior to administering as needed anti-anxiety medication, Alprazolam, for Resident #49. This affected one resident (Resident #49) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, dysphagia, pneumonia, dementia, delusional disorder, low back pain, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had moderately impaired cognition and received an anti-anxiety medication for seven days. Review of the March 2020 physician's orders revealed Resident #49 had an order dated 01/23/20 for 0.25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-03-05 · 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 record review, observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to maintain standard infection control practices when Resident #1's food tray was delivered to the room without proper implementation of contact isolation precautions and during Resident #33's dressing change. This affected one resident (Resident #1) and had the potential to affect three additional residents (Resident #41, #51, and #93) residing on the hall who received lunch trays, and affected one resident (Resident #33) of two residents observed during dressing changes. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including anemia and cerebral palsy. On 03/02/20 at 11:57 A.M., observation revealed a contact isolation sign posted on Resident #1's room door and personal protective equipment (PPE) located outside of the room's doorway. Observation of the lunch tray service revealed State-Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #420 removed Resident #1's tray from 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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two residents (Resident #19 and #99) of five residents reviewed for pneumococcal and influenza vaccines received the education addressing the benefits and risks of the pneumococcal and influenza vaccines or the date when re-offered the vaccines. The facility census was 111. Findings include: Review of Resident #19's Acknowledgement of Receipt of Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS), revealed the resident declined the pneumonia polysaccharide vaccine and the influenza vaccine; however, the medical record failed to include a date confirming when Resident #19 received the education addressing the benefits and risks or the date when the resident was re-offered the vaccines. Review of Resident #99's Acknowledgement of Receipt of Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS), revealed the resident declined the pneumonia polysaccharide vaccine and the influenza vaccine; however, the medical record failed to include a date confirming when Resident #99 received the education addressing the benefits and risks or the date when 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 · Fcited before2019-02-13 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure pots and pans were stored in a sanitary manner to prevent contamination. This had the potential to affect all 109 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 02/10/19 at 9:00 A.M. of the kitchen, with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #500 revealed there seven pots and pans that were observed to be wet on the storage rack. Interview on 02/10/19 at 9:10 A.M. with CDM #500 revealed pots and pans were not to be stacked wet and were to be air dried before putting away. CDM #500 verified the seven pots and pans as observed above had not been properly dried before being put away. Review of the facility policy, titled Dish Machine Practices, dated 04/2010 revealed dishes shall be air-dried and never stored wet.
- Potential for harm · F2019-02-13 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain an effective pet control program to prevent gnats in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all 109 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 02/10/19 at 9:00 A.M. of the kitchen with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #500 revealed when CDM #500 picked up the juice nozzle gnats flew out around the nozzle tray. CDM #500 verified the gnats flying around and stated she did not know were they came from. Observation on 02/11/19 at 10:28 A.M. with CDM #500 of the kitchen revealed gnats flying around the dishwasher area. CDM #500 verified the presence of the gnats at that time. On 02/12/19 at 11:45 A.M. gnats were observed flying around the juice machine in the kitchen area. CDM #500 verified the presence of the gnats and indicated the facility had a pest control come to the facility yesterday evening. Interview on 02/13/19 at 11:50 A.M. with CDM #500 verified gnats should not be flying around in the kitchen. Review of a pest control service work sheet, dated 02/11/19 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-02-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure all falls were thoroughly investigated and failed to ensure comprehensive, individualized and effective fall/safety interventions and increased supervision were in place to prevent falls for Resident #49. The facility also failed to ensure a treatment cart, containing medications and treatment supplies was securely locked when unattended by staff. This affected one resident (Resident #49) of three residents reviewed for falls and had the potential to affect 20 residents, Resident #97, #98, #53, #82, #5, #108, #107, #77, #50, #32, #37, #26, #34, #58, #36, #39, #85, #30, #49 and #17 identified by the facility to be cognitively impaired and independently mobile. The facility census was 109. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after hip surgery for a fracture, dementia, anxiety and unsteadiness on his feet. Record review revealed a fall care plan, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-02-13 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure authorizations to manage resident personal fund accounts were properly obtained prior to managing resident funds. This affected two residents (Resident #100 and #57) of six residents reviewed for personal fund accounts. Findings include: On 02/12/19 at 4:05 P.M. review of the facility personal fund accounts with Administration #600 revealed Resident #100 and Resident #57 did not have completed Resident Trust Fund Authorization forms. Resident #100's form was missing and Resident #57's form was not signed or witnessed. Administration #600 confirmed the Resident Trust Fund Authorization forms were not complete as noted above at the time of the review.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-02-13 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #87's privacy was maintained during an insulin injection. This affected one resident (Resident #87) of two residents observed during insulin injection administration. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia and aphasia. Record review revealed the resident was not interviewable due to her cognitive deficits and diagnoses. During an observation of medication administration with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #460 on 02/11/19 at 5:12 P.M., LPN #460 prepared two insulin injections for Resident #87. Her room was very close to the nurse's station and as LPN #460 turned from the medication cart, Resident #87's roommate was trying to enter the room in her wheelchair. She was assisted into the room by an unidentified nurse who stayed in the room briefly to talk with the roommate. Several other staff members were directly outside 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 before2019-02-13 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were accurately coded for dialysis and antipsychotic medications for Resident #45 and related to falls for Resident #49. This affected two residents (Resident #45 and #49) of 30 residents whose assessments were reviewed. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of end stage renal disease, atrial fibrillation, malignant neoplasm of the breast, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, dependence on renal dialysis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, constipation, anorexia, nausea with vomiting, kidney failure, pleural effusion, weakness, diabetes, asthma, and anxiety. Record review revealed the resident had received hemodialysis treatments. Review of a physician's orders, dated 11/27/18 revealed Resident #45 was to receive hemodialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of a physician's…
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 before2019-02-13 · 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 2. Observations on 02/10/19 at 9:13 A.M. and 2:23 P.M. and on 02/12/19 at 11:53 A.M. revealed Resident #102 was observed to have long, ragged and unclean fingernails. The resident's right hand was observed to be flaccid (limited movement) and her right hand nails were observed to be starting to dig into the palm of her right hand. An interview on 02/12/19 at 11:53 A.M. with Resident #102 revealed it had been awhile since her nails had been cut and they needed to be trimmed. An interview on 02/12/19 at 11:57 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #300 revealed the nursing assistants were to trim the resident's nails when providing showers unless the resident had diabetes and then the nurses were to trim the nails. An interview on 02/12/19 at 12:00 P.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #312 revealed activity staff would trim the resident's nails on nail days. She stated the STNA staff very rarely cut nails unless they were long, and the nurses do the nails of the residents who had diabetes. An interview on…
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 · D2019-02-13 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure weight monitoring was completed as ordered for Resident #45 who received hemodialysis. This affected one resident (Resident #45) of three residents reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of end stage renal disease, atrial fibrillation, malignant neoplasm of the breast, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, dependence on renal dialysis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, constipation, anorexia, nausea with vomiting, kidney failure, pleural effusion, weakness, diabetes, asthma, and anxiety. Review of a physician's order, dated 11/27/18 revealed Resident #45 was to have her weight done prior to dialysis days on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Weights were to be done pre-dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Review of the December 2018 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed 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 · D2019-02-13 · 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 record review and interview the facility failed to timely address a pharmacy recommendation for Resident #45. This affected one resident (Resident #45) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of end stage renal disease, atrial fibrillation, malignant neoplasm of the breast, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, dependence on renal dialysis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, constipation, anorexia, nausea with vomiting, kidney failure, pleural effusion, weakness, diabetes, asthma, and anxiety. Review of the physician's order, dated 11/28/18 revealed Resident #45 had an order for 400 milligrams of Amiodarone HCL once daily for atrial fibrillation. Review of a pharmacy recommendation dated 12/07/18 revealed the pharmacist indicated Resident #45 had been receiving Amiodarone 400 milligrams every day since…
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 · D2019-02-13 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure parameters for blood pressure monitoring were followed related to medication administration for Resident #45 and Resident #49 and failed to ensure Resident #49 did not receive more than the maximum dosage of Acetaminophen in a 24 hour period. This affected two residents (Resident #45 and #49) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of end stage renal disease, atrial fibrillation, malignant neoplasm of the breast, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, dependence on renal dialysis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, constipation, anorexia, nausea with vomiting, kidney failure, pleural effusion, weakness, diabetes, asthma, and anxiety. Review a physician's order dated 01/31/19 revealed Resident #45 had an order for 12.5 milligrams of Metoprolol Tartrate…
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 before2019-02-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain acceptable infection control practices to prevent the spread of infection during wound care for Resident #49 and Resident #27 and during medication administration for Resident #87. This affected two residents (Resident #27 and #49) of three residents reviewed for wound care and one resident (Resident #87) of two residents observed for insulin administration. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after right hip surgery. Review of the record revealed the resident developed an unstageable area to his right heel on 10/08/18 and a current treatment order, dated 01/03/19 revealed the resident was to have his right heel cleansed with normal saline, with santyl (a debriding agent) applied to wound, covered with alginate (another debriding agent) and then covered with a foam dressing every day. Review of the most recent wound measurements dated 02/07/19…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE — 81 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 80 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 80; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| QAZI, MOHAMMAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2016 |
| STOBB, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2016 |
| FRANZ, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| KHAN, ANIS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| POWELL, BRICE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $698K 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 366078. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-05-18, 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.