No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Ohio Living Mount Pleasant

225 Britton Lane, Monroe, OH 45050 · Non profit - Corporation · 32 certified beds · (513) 539-7391 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (513) 539-7391 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
35 Overbrook Dr Ste 100 · (513) 539-7356 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
2900 Towne Blvd · (513) 423-4882 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2 East Avenue
Park
10 E Elm St · (513) 539-7339 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
272 Britton Ln · (513) 539-5103

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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased8.3%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.7%6.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.2%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.1%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms8.9%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%3.2%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.8%6.1%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication40.0%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.0%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control13.4%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table7.3%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.7%75.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission44.4%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.9%12.9%12.0%better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

64.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 115 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

64.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
77.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.51U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.30hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 77.8% 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 36 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 0.51 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF64.2%CMS range 55.5–72.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.3%CMS range 9.0–16.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge77.8%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge75.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge69.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot 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 stay2.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.5%CMS range 3.2–11.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.731.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.04
RN hours/ resident / day
1.63
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.42
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.08
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.57
RN hoursweekends
30.0%
Total nursing turnover
28.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 32 beds and averages 29.4 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.04 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.42 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 3.85 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.17 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.22 to 0.57 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-22)
8
at the previous standard inspection (2022-08-01)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2022-08-01 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate pain management 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure acute pain was adequately monitored for a resident experiencing pain following a fall. Actual harm occurred when Resident #44 complained of pain on 07/26/22 at 7:00 A.M and was not assessed by a nurse and did not receive pain medication until 10:44 A.M. Resident #44 continued to complain of pain until the nurse reassessed for the pain at 2:36 P.M. This affected one (Resident #44) of one resident reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 73. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #44 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia with lewy bodies, parkinson's disease, type two diabetes mellitus, dysuria, difficulty in walking, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified pain, orthostatic hypotension, insomnia, and chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of the plan of care dated 06/21/19 revealed the resident was at risk for pain due to a history of multilevel spondylosis and osteoarthritis. Interventions…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2026-01-22 · tag F0700 — widespread
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to assess residents for risk of entrapment and failed to obtain informed consent prior to installation of assist bars on resident beds. This affected all 28 residents identified by the facility with assist bars attached to their bed. The census was 28.Findings include:Observations of resident rooms on 01/21/26 between 4:26 P.M. and 4:53 P.M. revealed assist bars were attached to all beds in occupied resident rooms.Interview on 01/21/26 at 12:13 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #212 stated the facility did not assess residents for risk of entrapment from assist bars on resident beds.Interview on 01/21/26 at 2:06 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed assist bars were applied to all resident beds within in the facility. The DON also reported staff did not assess residents for risk of entrapment related to the use of assist bars on resident beds.Interview on 01/22/26 9:10 A.M. with Occupational Therapist (OT) #252 revealed occupation therapy initial evaluations of residents did not include assessment…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff with facial hair wore appropriate beard covers during meal preparation. This had the potential to affect all 28 residents the facility identified as receiving food from the kitchen. The census was 28. Findings Include: Observation of the kitchen on 01/20/26 from 11:45 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. revealed Sous Chef #177, Dietary Technician (DT) #245, and [NAME] #228 each had varying lengths of facial hair and assisted with meal preparation without wearing beard covers. During an interview on 01/20/26 at 12:28 P.M., Corporate Culinary Director #251 verified male kitchen staff were preparing food without wearing appropriate beard covers. Additionally, he stated every male with facial hair was required to wear a beard cover during food preparation or tray line.During an interview on 01/20/26 at 12:29 P.M. Culinary Director #206 verified Sous Chef #177 and DT #245 both had visible facial hair and were not wearing beard covers while preparing lunch meal trays. During an interview on 01/20/26 at 12:30…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-22 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure 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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications ordered for residents had adequate indications for use. This affected two (#6 and #24) of eight residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 28.Findings include:1. Record review for Resident #6 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction; hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side; unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with mood disturbance; and type II diabetes.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident was assessed to require substantial/maximal assistance for eating, and was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, toileting, shower/bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #6'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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-08-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespread
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure insulin and over-the-counter medications were not stored beyond their expiration date. This affected Resident #71 and potentially all residents. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Observation on 07/27/22 at 1:52 P.M. revealed the Skilled Care Unit (SCU) had two opened bottles of insulin that were stored beyond their expiration date. Resident #71 had one bottle of Humalog (aspart insulin) opened 06/19/22 and Lantus (glargine insulin) dated 06/18/22. During an interview at 1:55 P.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 120 verified the SCU med cart held two bottles of insulin for Resident #71 that were stored beyond their expiration date. LPN #120 stated insulin was good for 28 days after opened. 2. During observation on 07/27/22 at 1:39 P.M., revealed the main storage room located in the basement contained multiple bottles of expired medications including four boxes Tagamet 200 milligrams (mg) expired 04/22; five bottles of fish oil 500 mg softgels dated 06/22 and one bottle dated 03/21; 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-08-01 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespread
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide food portions and prepare foods as planned by a Registered Dietitian. This directly affected one (Resident #33) but had the potential to affect all 73 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #33 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia and cerebral infarction. Review of the Minimum Data Set, (MDS) comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and was receiving eight ounces of supplement twice a day and pureed diet. Resident #33 was receiving hospice care and had 14 percent weight loss in past 90 days. Review of the breakfast menu spreadsheet, dated 07/26/22, revealed the pureed diet meal consisted of one slice of french toast. Review of the recipe for bread slurry revealed a bread slice is saturated with a food thickener.…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-08-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to deliver food to residents in a sanitary manner. The facility identified all residents received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. During observations on 07/25/22 from 12:03 P.M. to 12:26 P.M., Dietary Aides (DA) #173 and #176 passed lunch trays to residents located on the [NAME] Unit. DA #173 wheeled cart to the [NAME] dining room and delivered lunch trays to Residents #7, #11, #12, #21, #52, #66, and #73. DA #173 did not sanitize her hands or perform hand hygiene. DA #176 delivered a tray to Resident #25 and did not sanitize his hands or perform hand hygiene. DA #173 removed a breakfast tray from Resident #63's room and placed the dirty tray in the top row of the lunch cart above clean lunch trays, asked if that was ok, then handed the dirty tray to DA #176 to return to kitchen. DA #173 delivered a food tray to Resident #41, placed the tray on the bedside table, and moved table in front of the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-08-01 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — pattern
    Provide 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing on the Special Care Unit (SCU). This had the potential to affect all nine residents on the SCU. The facility census was 73. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 12/29/18. Diagnoses included dementia with lewy bodies, parkinson's disease, type two diabetes mellitus, dysuria, difficulty in walking, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified pain, orthostatic hypotension, insomnia, and chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of the plan of care, dated 06/21/19, revealed the resident was at risk for pain due to a history of multilevel spondylosis and osteoarthritis. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered/monitor for effectiveness and notify the physician if pain increases in severity/frequency or is not relieved with ordered medications. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/10/22, revealed the resident had a severe cognitive…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-08-01 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food preferences and food items listed on the meal tray for three (Residents #19, # 38 and #37) of five residents reviewed for meal accuracy and food preferences. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. During interview on 07/25/22 at 10:37 A.M., Resident #38 stated she selects food preferences for each meal and writes the preferences on the meal ticket because she had intolerances to many foods. She stated she does not get the foods she selects. Review of the spreadsheet dated 07/25/22 revealed the No Added Salt diet included peanut butter sandwich, perfection salad and orange wedges. Review of the meal ticket for Resident #38 on 07/25/22 revealed the resident selected foods of a peanut butter sandwich with mayonnaise, perfection salad and orange wedges. During observation on 07/2522 at 12:40 P.M. Resident #38 received a peanut butter sandwich with no mayonnaise, no perfection salad and no orange wedges. Review of the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-08-01 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining service for residents. This affected four (Residents #66, #64, #14 and #37) of seven resident reviewed for dining service dignity. The census was 73. Findings include: During observation on 07/25/22 at 12:22 P.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) # 22 was standing over Resident #64 in the [NAME]/[NAME] dining room, feeding the resident the lunch meal. During interview on 07/25/22 at 12:25 P.M., STNA #22 verified she was standing and feeding the resident. She stated she was to sit beside the resident when feeding the resident. During observation on 07/25/22 at 12:35 P. M., STNA #129 was standing over Resident #14 while the resident was sitting upright in bed. During interview on 07/25/22 at 12:40 P.M., STNA #129 verified she stood beside the bed and fed Resident #14. She stated there was no chair in the room. During observation on 07/27/22 at 8:49 A.M., STNA #165 was looking at her phone while standing and feeding Resident…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-08-01 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent. 33 medications were ordered with two errors, for a medication error rate of 6.06 percent. This affected two (Residents # 59 and #64) of four residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 73. Findings include: During observation on 07/27/22 at 9:47 A.M, Registered Nurse (RN) #137 held Resident #64's scheduled polysaccharide-iron complex 150 mg capsule because she was unable to locate the medication in the medication cart. During observation of medication administration on 07/27/22 at 10:34 A.M., RN #137 held Resident #59's scheduled Lisinopril 20 mg because she was unable to locate the medication in the medication cart. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #59 had physician orders for lisinopril 20 mg by mouth once daily. Resident #64 had physician orders for polysaccharide complex 150 mg by mouth twice daily. During interview on 07/27/22 at 9:58 A.M. and 10:34 A.M. RN #137 verified medications were not given to Residents…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to OHIO LIVING COMMUNITIES — 11 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 54.4-0.4 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.5-0.5 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 5 of 54.9≈ chain avg
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.4★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
ADAM, SANDRAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2019
JOYCE, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2020
WHITE, TERRYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2019
GUMINA, LAURENCEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/28/2011
STILLMAN, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/15/2013
BERNER, SUSANIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 03/07/2017
KAPPERS, STANLEYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 11/01/2002

CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.

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.

$4.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-12.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$370K
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 43%Medicare 12%Other / private 45%

This home reported $370K 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 2024. 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

$484per resident / day
operating cost
$14,724per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$430per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

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 365358. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.

What to do next