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

Arlington Care Center

98 South 30th Street, Newark, OH 43055 · For profit - Corporation · 110 certified beds · (740) 344-0303 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (740) 344-0303 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 11 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1272 W Main St Ste 2 · (220) 564-4824 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Pharmacy0.9 mi
553 Hebron Road
Grocery
553 Hebron Rd · (740) 522-1138 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 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 fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
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 increased1.1%5.3%15.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.6%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 infection0.0%0.4%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms46.9%30.1%6.5%worse 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 injury3.4%3.2%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened3.2%6.1%16.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication33.1%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.0%3.4%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.7%21.4%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.6%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.4%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.5%75.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission30.5%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit15.7%12.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.501.731.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.451.801.80worse

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.

54.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 83 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

54.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
35.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.16U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.07hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 35.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 42 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 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF54.9%CMS range 45.6–64.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 7.3–15.210.7%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 discharge35.7%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 discharge45.2%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 discharge35.7%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 settingnot 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%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 worsened2.9%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 hospitalization7.0%CMS range 3.7–12.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.801.02Oct 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

0.28
RN hours/ resident / day
1.15
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.96
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.39
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.23
RN hoursweekends
43.3%
Total nursing turnover
57.1%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 110 beds and averages 102.3 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.96 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 3.04 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.53 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-26)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-11)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and medical record review the facility failed to ensure one, (Resident #37) received timely assistance with facial grooming. This affected one of two reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 97Findings include:Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/05/26. Medical diagnoses include encounter for other orthopedic aftercare, nondisplaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, need for assistance with personal care, wedge compression fracture of unspecified lumbar vertebrae, chronic kidney disease stage III, Alzheimer's disease, and essential primary hypertension.Review of Resident 37's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated 02/11/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score which was noted as not completed due to Resident #37 is rarely/never understood. Review of functional abilities note Resident #37 requires substantial/maximal assistance with personal hygiene.Review of Resident #37's bath/shower sheets…

    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 · D2026-02-26 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #102 received services for her vision. This affected one, (Resident #102) of one resident viewed for communication and sensory. The facility census was 97.Findings include: Review of Resident #102's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/25/24 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, type two diabetes mellitus, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left nondominant side, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and anemia.Review of Resident #102's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition and adequate vision.Review of Resident #102's Healthdrive request for service, dated 10/03/24, revealed the resident had requested to be seen by eye care.Review of Resident #102's physician order dated 11/04/25 revealed an order to be treated as needed by podiatrist, dentist, or optometrist.Review of Resident #102's plan of care on 02/25/26 revealed it did…

    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 · D2026-02-26 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolated
    Provide appropriate foot care.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to provide timely podiatric care for one, (Resident #79) of two reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The census was 97.Findings include:Review of Resident #79 ' s medical record revealed an admission date of 11/21/25. Diagnoses include spinal stenosis lumbar region without neurogenic claudication, wedge compression fracture of T 9-T 10 (thoracic) vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routing healing, Type II Diabetes Mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy, and essential primary hypertension.Review of Resident 79 ' s admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated 02/05/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven. Review of functional abilities revealed Resident #79 required substantial/maximal assistance with putting on/taking off footwear.Review of Resident #79 ' s care plan dated 02/03/26 confirmed Resident #79 may require assistance with ADLs and may be at risk for developing complications associated with decreased ADL self-performance. Resident #79 is assisted with all…

    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 · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to obtain weekly weights for Resident #37 who was a new admission and at nutritional risk. This affected one (Resident #37) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The census was 97.Findings include: Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/05/26. Medical diagnoses include encounter for other orthopedic aftercare, nondisplaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, need for assistance with personal care, wedge compression fracture of unspecified lumbar vertebrae, chronic kidney disease stage III, Alzheimer's disease, and essential primary hypertension.Review of Resident 37's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated 02/11/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not completed noting Resident #37 is rarely/never understood. Review of functional abilities revealed Resident #37 required partial/moderate assistance 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · 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 interview and medical record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #13's blood pressure medications were not administered outside of parameters. This affected one resident (#13) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 97.Findings include: Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/03/24 with diagnoses including Type Two Diabetes Mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, and acquired absence of right leg. Review of Resident #13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition.Review of Resident #13's plan of care dated 09/13/24 revealed the resident had altered health maintenance related to diagnoses including atherosclerotic heart disease and hypertension. Interventions included administering medications as ordered.Review of Resident #13's physician order dated 09/12/24 revealed an order for Carvedilol tablet 3.125 milligrams…

    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 · D2025-12-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement safety interventions for Resident #37. This affected one (Resident #37) out three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 103.Findings include:Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/31/22 with diagnoses including but not limited Alzheimer's disease, chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 had impaired cognition, required assistance from staff to complete activities of daily living (ADL) tasks including personal hygiene care, was incontinent of urine and bowel, and used a wheelchair for mobility.Review of Resident #37's alteration in skin integrity care plan dated 09/09/22 revealed an intervention for geri-sleeves (protective sleeves) to bilateral arms as tolerated and staff to offer and encourage resident to wear long sleeves at…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-07-11 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, review of a test tray, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palliative and warm food temperature. This affected Residents #11, #77, and #80 and had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen except Resident #1 and Resident #99 who were nothing-by-mouth (NPO). The facility census was 94. Findings include: Interview with Resident #77 on 07/08/24 at 11:01 A.M. stated the food was cold. Resident #77 said they have warmers, but they were not using them at all meals. Resident #77 said the breakfast was normally cold. Interview with Resident #80 on 07/08/24 at 11:26 A.M. revealed the food was terrible, not appealing, and cold by the time it gets to them. Resident #80 also said the breakfast was always the same eggs and toast or pancakes and sausage. Interview with Resident #11 on 07/09/24 a 10:19 A.M. revealed the food doesn't agree with her. She said a lot of times the food was cold when they get it. Observation of the tray line was made on 07/11/24 at 8:23 A.M. 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-07-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control practices in the area of isolation and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). This affected two residents (#77 and #84) of 24 residents on isolation and/or EBP. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was completed in between contact with each resident while serving meal trays. This had the potential to all nine residents (Resident #198, #86, #30, #199, #200, #74, #72, #63, and #201) residing on the facility's C unit who received a meal tray. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #77 revealed an initial admission date of 02/21/24 with the diagnoses including hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction, artificial openings of urinary tract infection (UTI), and chronic kidney disease. Review of the admission assessment and baseline care plan dated 02/21/24 revealed Resident #77 had a right nephrostomy tube in place. Review of the plan of care dated…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-08-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #24, Resident #58 and Resident #350, who required staff assistance for activities of living (ADL) care received timely assistance with nail care to maintain proper grooming. This affected three residents (#24, #58 and #350) of three residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility identified 71 residents who required assistance with grooming and hygiene. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 12/09/21 with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, obesity, coronary artery disease, major depressive disorder, dementia and hallucinations. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 06/10/22 revealed Resident #24 required extensive assistance from one staff for dressing and hygiene. Review of the plan of care, dated 06/10/22 revealed Resident #24 may require assistance with ADLs. Interventions include to provide assistance with bathing and grooming based on…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-08-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #37 was provided timely and adequate assistance with eating, a nutritional diet was provided as ordered and meal intakes were documented for Resident #37 who was identified to have a significant weight loss in one month. This affected one resident (#37) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pressure ulcer to the sacral area, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, sleep apnea and depression. Review of the dietary assessment, dated 07/06/22 at 1:06 P.M. revealed Resident #37 was on a regular diet with finger foods because she would not use silverware. The assessment revealed the meal should provide approximately 2473 calories and 95 grams of protein daily. The resident feeds herself with poor intakes of approximately 25-50 percent of most meals documented. Her current body weight…

    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 · D2022-08-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #37 had oxygen on to maintain her oxygen saturation above 90 percent as ordered. This affected one resident (#37) of eight residents who were ordered oxygen on unit one. Finding include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pressure ulcer to the sacral area, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, sleep apnea and depression. Review of the Minimum data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 07/07/22 revealed Resident #37 had severely impaired cognition, required total assist from one staff member for dressing and personal hygiene, extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility and extensive assistance from one staff member for eating. Review of the August 2022 physician's orders revealed Resident #37 had an order for oxygen at two liters via nasal cannula continuously to maintain oxygen saturation (above 90%) and to check oxygen…

    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

“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 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 54.1-1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.9+0.1 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 52.3-1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 54.3-1.3 vs chain
The other 63 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Inniswood Health and RehabilitationWesterville, OH 2 of 5Canterbury Villa Of AllianceAlliance, OH 2 of 5Park Health CenterSt Clairsville, OH 2 of 5Tuscany GardensPataskala, OH 2 of 5Veranda Gardens Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterCincinnati, OH 3 of 5Bennington Glen Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterMarengo, OH 3 of 5Cumberland Pointe Care CenterSt Clairsville, OH 3 of 5Emerald Pointe Health And Rehab CtrBarnesville, OH 3 of 5Hickory Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterAkron, OH 3 of 5Home At Taylor's PointeCincinnati, OH 3 of 5McNaughten Pointe Nursing And RehabColumbus, OH 3 of 5Meadow Grove Transitional CareGrove City, OH 3 of 5The Gables Of Marysville Health And RehabilitationMarysville, OH 3 of 5The Gardens Of Fairfax Health Care CenterCleveland, OH 3 of 5Timberland Ridge Nursing & RehabilitationFairlawn, OH 4 of 5Austin Trace Health And RehabilitationCenterville, OH 4 of 5Batavia Nursing Care CenterBatavia, OH 4 of 5Claymont Health And RehabilitationUhrichsville, OH 4 of 5Crown Pointe Care CenterColumbus, OH 4 of 5Florentine GardensLoveland, OH 4 of 5Hickory Creek Of AthensThe Plains, OH 4 of 5Jefferson Healthcare CenterJefferson, OH 4 of 5Lafayette Pointe Nursing & Rehab CtrWest Lafayette, OH 4 of 5Maria Joseph Living Care CenterDayton, OH 4 of 5Mill Creek Nursing & RehabilitationGalion, OH 4 of 5Respiratory And Nursing Center Of DaytonMoraine, OH 4 of 5Sycamore Run Nursing And Rehab CtrMillersburg, OH 4 of 5Waterview Pointe Nursing & RehabilitationMarietta, OH 4 of 5Woods On French Creek Nursing & Rehab Center TheAvon, OH 5 of 5Admirals Pointe Nursing & RehabilitationHuron, OH 5 of 5Brunswick Pointe Transitional CareBrunswick, OH 5 of 5Capri GardensLewis Center, OH 5 of 5Carington ParkAshtabula, OH 5 of 5Concord Health & Rehab CtrWheelersburg, OH 5 of 5Concord Ridge Health And RehabilitationMentor, OH 5 of 5Country View Of SunburySunbury, OH 5 of 5Darby Glenn Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterHilliard, OH 5 of 5Glen MeadowsHamilton, OH 5 of 5Golden Years Nursing CenterHamilton, OH 5 of 5Highbanks Care CenterColumbus, OH

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
COLLERAN FAM TR DATED 01-01-2018OrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/01/2018
COLLERAN, BRIANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
KRYSTOWSKI, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2018
FOUNDATIONS HEALTH SOLUTIONS INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
DUVAL, SHERIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/26/2014
CAMPBELL, JEREMYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2011

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

2 organizational owners 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.

$11.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+8.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$808K
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 67%Medicare 4%Other / private 29%

This home reported $808K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

$290per resident / day
operating cost
$8,810per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$318per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

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 365440. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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