Scenic Pointe Nursing And Rehab Ctr
8067 Township Road 334, Millersburg, OH 44654 · For profit - Individual · 150 certified beds · (330) 674-0015 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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 |
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 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 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 | 2.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 91.7% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.4% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.2% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.7% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.9% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.2% | 8.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.08 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.29 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 150 beds and averages 131.1 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 19 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 3.11 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.89 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.36 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below the national median of 45%.
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.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-07 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 received an updated Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) after mental health diagnoses was identified. This affected one (Resident #4) of two residents reviewed for PASRR. The facility census was 131.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 02/15/19. Diagnoses included unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and cognitive communication disorder. On 04/18/25 recurrent major depression was added to the resident diagnoses list.Review of Resident #4's physician orders dated 05/2026 revealed the resident was receiving Depakote Extended Release 500 milligram (mg) with instructions to give three tablets in the evening for unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition and Sertraline 200 mg with instructions to take one capsule by mouth one time a day related to major depressive disorder.Review of Resident #4's PASRR Identification Screen…
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 before2026-05-07 · 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 interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatments were completed as ordered by the wound practitioner for Resident #109. This affected one resident (#109) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 131.Findings include: Review of Resident #109's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/26/22 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, moderate intellectual disabilities, vascular dementia, bipolar disorder, psoriasis, repeated falls, and venous insufficiency. Review of Resident #109's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #109's plan of care dated 03/09/26 revealed the resident had a pressure ulcer on his sacrum. Interventions included assessing the area weekly and as needed, assessing for pain and treatment as ordered, bariatric air mattress with bolsters, body check weekly, and providing treatment as ordered.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 · D2025-04-07 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
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, interview, policy review, the facility failed to ensure home health services were arranged prior to resident discharge from the facility. This affected one resident (#139) of three resident records reviewed. The census was 136. Findings include: Review of Resident #139's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 03/20/25. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, vascular dementia, dysphagia, impulse disorder, major depression, and intermittent explosive disorder. Review of the annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed his cognition was intact. He required supervision or touching assistance with eating, oral hygiene, dependent on toileting, dressing, personal hygiene and turning and repositioning. He was frequently incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order on 03/20/25 to discharge home. Review of the progress notes dated 03/18/25…
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 · Fcited before2024-09-19 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The census was 136. Findings Include: Observation of the kitchen on 09/19/24 from 11:00 A.M. through 11:30 A.M. revealed there was a five-pound bucket of pickle spears (half full), in the cooler, with no lid and the bucket was not dated when opened. The walk-in freezer floor had food and dirt buildup on the floor and the floor was sticky. The three sugar bins and one flour bin were not dated, and the outside of the bins were soiled with food and dirt buildup. Interview on 09/19/24 at 11:08 A.M. with [NAME] #307 verified the pickles were not dated or covered. [NAME] #307 verified the walk in-freezer was not clean and the floor was sticky. Interview on 09/19/24 at 11:15 A.M. with the Dietary Manager (DM) #308 verified all above findings. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the investigation of Complaint Number OH00156585.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-19 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a dignified dining experience. This affected two residents (Resident #50 and #137) but had the potential to affect 16 residents (Resident #37, #46, #47, #52, #53, #55, #69, #80, #93, #94, #108, #109, #112, #120, #123 and #137) of 24 residents who ate meals in the 100 hall and 200 hall dining room and do not use adaptive cups. The census was 136. Findings include: Observation of dining room on the 100-Hall and 200-Hall on 09/18/24 at 5:00 P.M. revealed Resident #37, #46, #47, #52, #53, #55, #69, #80, #93, #94, #108, #109, #112, #120, #123 and #137) had styrofoam cups with water, coffee and/or hot chocolate. Interview on 09/18/24 at 5:10 P.M. with State Tested Nurses Assistant (STNA) #321 verified that styrofoam cups were being used for water, coffee and hot chocolate for residents that did not require adaptive cups. STNA #321 stated the silverware, and drinks are brought to the dining room prior to the delivery of the meal trays and there are not enough cups for coffee/hot chocolate, so they use…
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 · F2024-03-28 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 staffing timecards, interviews, and the facility submitted Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) tracking information, the facility failed to ensure there were sufficient staff on the weekends. This had the potential to affect all 131 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility staffing schedule, timecards, and completion of the staffing tool for several weekends on 03/27/24 from 9:00 A.M. through 11:00 A.M. with Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that the facility did not meet the required minimum direct care daily average of 2.50 hours on the following dates: • The staffing tool noted 2.25 hours of direct resident care hours on 04/08/23. • The staffing tool noted 1.75 hours of direct resident care hours on 04/09/23. • The staffing tool noted 1.85 hours of direct resident care hours on 05/27/23. • The staffing tool noted 2.28 hours of direct resident care hours on 05/28/23. • The staffing tool noted 2.36 hours of direct resident care hours on 06/17/23.…
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 · F2024-03-28 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of staffing schedules the facility failed to ensure they had sufficient dietary staff to maintain a clean dining room and kitchen. This had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food from the kitchen. The facility indicated all residents consumed food from the kitchen. The facility census was 131. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 03/25/24 at 8:40 A.M. and on 03/27/24 from 9:40 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. revealed the kitchen floor had an overall muddy appearance, as if wet dirt had been pushed around. This appearance worsened the closer it got to the dish room. Additional observation revealed the floor underneath equipment and tables had a thicker buildup of dirt and food splatter. The corners and edges of the room had a buildup of dirt extending from the baseboard. Additionally, the floor under equipment and tables had several pieces of food, lids, and condiment containers. Interview on 03/27/24 between 9:40 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. with Head [NAME] #389 verified the observation. She reported they deep cleaned the floor 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 · Fcited before2024-03-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of cleaning schedules, the facility failed to ensure resident dining areas and the kitchen were maintained in a sanitary manner. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure 26 residents (#6, #10, #13, #14, #17, #33, #35, #41, #42, #45, #47, #51, #52, #71, #84, #88, #93, #95, #97, #102, #105, #120, #122, #123, #125, and #131) in the 300 and 400 hall dining rooms were served food in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food from the kitchen. The facility indicated all residents consumed food from the kitchen. The facility census was 131. Findings include: 1. Observation of the kitchen on 03/25/24 at 8:40 A.M. and on 03/27/24 from 9:40 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. revealed the kitchen floor had an overall muddy appearance, as if wet dirt had been pushed around. This appearance worsened the closer it got to the dish room. Additional observation revealed the floor underneath equipment and tables had a thicker buildup of dirt and food splatter. The corners and edges of the room had a buildup of dirt extending from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-05-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, and maintenance records the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was properly functioning and the facility did not properly store food. This had the potential to affect all 153 residents residing in the facility and consuming food/meals from the kitchen. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/16/22 at 8:35 A.M. of the facility's kitchen revealed a pan covered with aluminum foil with writing on top of the foil identifying it as pork roast. The writing indicated the pork roast was made 05/11/22 and the use by date was 05/18/22. There was a pan covered with aluminum foil and labeled as country fried steak (poultry) with the date made as 05/11/22 and the use by date as 05/18/22. Interview on 05/16/22 at 8:35 A.M. with Dietary Aide #128 revealed all leftovers, including meats, are kept for seven days before they are discarded. Interview on 05/16/22 at 2:22 P.M. with Dietary Manager #218 revealed all leftovers are kept for seven days except for produce, which is kept for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-05-19 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary laundry room. This had the potential to affect all 153 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. Findings included: Observation on 05/17/22 at 10:15 A.M. of the laundry room revealed four fans located on the clean side of the laundry room. The fans were visibly dirty with a heavy build-up of dirt and dust particles. Laundry staff were present in the laundry area folding residents' clothes and facility bed linens for all residents. Interview immediately after this observation with Laundry Staff #16 and Laundry Staff #101 verified the four fans on in the clean area of the laundry were covered in dirt/dust and needed cleaned.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-19 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of the resident account information and interviews the facility purchased additional insurance for Resident #61 and Resident #138 without consent from the resident or their legal representative. This affected two residents of five residents reviewed for resident funds. Findings Included: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, convulsions, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, crushing injury of the skull, hemiplegia and tremors. Resident #61's sister was listed as his legal representative. Review of the Living Care Facility Resident Application for Insurance form dated 09/05/19 revealed Resident #61 was to pay $127.00 per month for dental coverage, $35.00 a month for vision coverage, $62.00 a month for audiology coverage and $66.00 a month for podiatry coverage, totaling $290.00 a month. The form was signed electronically by Business Office Manager (BOM) #197 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 · Dcited before2022-05-19 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pressure relieving interventions were in place for Resident #143. This affected one of one residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 153. Findings include: Review of Resident #143's medical record revealed and admission date of 06/04/19. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and a pressure ulcer stage four to his coccyx. Stage four pressure ulcers involve a full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed fascia, muscle, tendon, ligaments, cartilage or bone and may have slough or eschar (dead or devitalized) tissue in the wound. Review of May 2022 physician order's for Resident #143 revealed orders for staff to use padded heel suspended boots to both of his feet while in bed and while in his wheelchair, and an order for a chair cushion in place on every shift. Review of Resident #143's care plan 05/02/22 revealed to maintain skin integrity, the facility staff would apply padded heel suspended boots to both…
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 FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS — 64 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 63; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| COLLERAN, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| KRYSTOWSKI, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2018 |
| FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| PROUDFOOT, BETHANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2018 |
| LATOUF, BUTROS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 5 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 $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 366333. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-07, 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.