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

Laurie Ann Nursing Home

2200 Milton Boulevard, Newton Falls, OH 44444 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (330) 872-1990 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (330) 872-1990 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 20241 actual-harm citation
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (20% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags

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 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 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
43 W Broad St · (330) 296-4165 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
37 Ridge Rd · (330) 872-5181 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
IGA0.6 mi
192-250 Milton Blvd · (330) 872-1201 · Call to confirm hours
Park
315 S Center St · (330) 872-5261 · 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 held steady at 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 increased3.5%5.3%15.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight15.8%6.2%5.4%worse
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 infection0.6%0.4%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms8.2%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 injury2.5%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened6.8%6.1%16.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication20.3%25.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.7%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers9.9%3.4%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.3%21.4%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table0.0%8.8%17.1%check this — see note marked star below the table
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.3%1.2%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine89.0%75.6%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission27.0%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.7%12.9%12.0%typical

* 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.

42.2% 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 79 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

42.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
63.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
not reportedno hours filed
Therapy hours / resident / day

Met the expected recovery: 63.6% 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 33 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF42.2%CMS range 32.3–52.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.5%CMS range 8.3–16.010.7%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 discharge63.6%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 discharge69.7%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 discharge75.8%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 identified94.1%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 setting97.7%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 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 worsened7.8%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 hospitalization9.6%CMS range 6.2–14.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.301.02Oct 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

0.72
RN hours/ resident / day
0.48
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.85
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.05
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.48
RN hoursweekends
20.5%
Total nursing turnover
30.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 55.0 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.85 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.22 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 20% 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

8
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-18)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2023-03-07)

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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2023-03-07 · 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, medical record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's complaints of constant pain with ineffective pain interventions were addressed in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #32) of four residents reviewed for pain. The facility census was 42. Actual harm occurred to Resident #32 on 03/01/23 when Resident #32 informed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #39 he had constant pain and ordered Tylenol was ineffective in managing the pain. The resident described the pain as a shocking/stabbing sensation to the left hip/leg/feet. LPN #39 failed to report the pain to the physician and no changes were made to pain management until 03/02/23 which resulted in a lack of effective pain relief and suffering for the resident for an extended period of time. Findings include: Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed diagnoses including cerebral infarction, neuropathy, type two diabetes mellitus, and osteoarthritis. The admission nursing assessment did not…

    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 · F2025-06-18 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the garbage and refuse was maintained in a sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all 56 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation of the facilities outside dumpster area with Dietary Supervisor (DS) #224 on 06/16/25 at 7:26 A.M. revealed there were two dumpsters in the area. The dumpster on the right-hand side had both lids closed on top and both sliding doors on each side were closed. The dumpster on the left side had both lids closed and the sliding door on the right side of the unit was closed. On the left side of the dumpster, there was an opening in the dumpster where the sliding door should have been with the black sliding door located on the ground under the back left-hand corner of the dumpster. Located on the ground around the dumpsters was a buildup of debris which included five white plastic surgical gloves, one clear plastic cup, one empty pudding cup container, two medicine cups, multiple pieces of plastic wrap of various sizes, 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility to ensure Turbersol serum was dated upon opening per manufacturers instruction for efficacy. This had the potential to affect 15 (Residents #15, #19, #21, #51, #52, #106, #107, #156, #157, #206, #207, #208, #209, #256 and #257) identified as new admissions on the 100 unit in the last 30 days. The facility also did not ensure pills were not left at the bedside for Resident #35. This had the potential to affect seven (Residents #11, #24, #43, #106, #157, #208, and #257) who were identified as cognitively impaired and independently mobile on the 100 unit. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. On 06/16/25 at 8:20 A.M. an inspection of the medication storage room on the 100 unit revealed a one milliliter vial of Turbersol (a serum used to aid in the diagnosis of tuberculosis) that was opened and undated. The Director of Nursing (DON) verified the opened vial of Tubersol as being undated at the time of the observation. A…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · 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

    Based on observation, staff and family interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility didn't ensure indwelling urinary catheter bags were timely covered in a dignified manner. This affected one (Resident #8) out of two residents reviewed for dignity and had the potential to affect four additional (Residents #15, #37, #41, and #206) the facility identified as having indwelling urinary catheters. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 05/19/25 and a readmission date of 06/12/25. Pertinent diagnoses included retention of urine, obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage in body which makes it difficult or impossible to urinate), disorder of kidney and ureter (small tubes of muscle that transport urine from kidneys to the urinary bladder), and chronic kidney disease. Review of the readmission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed it was in process of being completed. Review of the 06/02/25 discharge MDS assessment revealed the staff had assessed Resident #8 as having modified…

    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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents' wishes regarding end-of-life measures were signed by the physician. This affected two (Residents #6 and #47) of three residents reviewed for Advanced Directives. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date of 01/08/24. Diagnoses included dementia, depression, diabetes and kidney failure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired. She required set up help for eating, oral and personal hygiene, partial assistance for showering and substantial assistance for toileting. Review of the physicians' orders for June 2025 for Resident #6 revealed an order for Do Not Resuscitate, Comfort Care only, comfort care will be provided, even before a cardiac or respiratory arrest occurs (DNRCC). Review of the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form dated 01/08/24 revealed…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · 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 observations, interviews, record reviews, tray ticket and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure fluid restrictions were followed as ordered for Residents #26 and #158. This affected two (Residents #26 and #158) out of four residents reviewed for nutrition and had the potential to affect one additional (Resident #36) identified by the facility as being on a fluid restriction. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure weekly weights were obtained as ordered for Residents #26. This affected one (Residents #26) out of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #158 revealed an admission date of 05/12/25 and a reentry date of 06/07/25. Diagnoses included acute on chronic combined systolic and diastolic heart failure (CHF), Non-ST elevation (NSTEM) myocardial infarction (heart attack), cardiomyopathies (disease of the heart muscle), hypertension (high blood pressure), and hyperlipidemia. Review of…

    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 · D2025-06-18 · 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 observations, interviews, record reviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was dated and monitored for routine replacement. This affected two (Residents #41 and #48) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care but had the potential to affect an additional 10 (Residents #2, #7, #9, #12, #20, #33, #34, #43, #157, and #158) the facility identified as using oxygen. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/29/25 with diagnoses including pneumonia, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), anxiety disorder, vascular dementia, acidosis (too much acid in the body fluids), bradycardia (heart beats more slowly than expected), atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), right bundle branch block (an obstacle in the right bundle branch of the heart that makes the heartbeat late and creates an irregular heart beat), and old myocardial infarction (heart attack).…

    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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were reviewed and responded to timely by the physician and/or practitioner. This affected two (Residents #17 and #20) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, type two diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, lymphedema, benign prostatic hyperplasia, osteoarthritis, hypothyroid, hypomagnesemia, ulcerative colitis, post traumatic disorder, metabolic encephalopathy, major depressive disorder, heart failure, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had intact cognition and was receiving antidepressant medication, anticoagulant medication, diuretic medication, antiplatelet medication and hypoglycemic…

    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 · D2025-06-18 · 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 record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications had the appropriate diagnosis for administration. This affected one (Resident #28) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 11/21/22. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, delusions, kidney disease, diabetes, paranoid schizophrenia and high cholesterol. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 was cognitively intact. He required set up help for eating and personal hygiene, supervision for oral hygiene and toileting and partial assistance for showering. Review of the gradual dose reduction (GDR) form dated 02/28/25 revealed a recommendation by Pharmacist #268 to clarify the diagnosis for Namenda, which had been prescribed for paranoid schizophrenia. The recommendation was made to correct the diagnosis to dementia, which…

    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 · D2024-11-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interview, facility self-reported incident (SRI) review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #55 was free from staff-to-resident physical abuse. This affected one resident (#55) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 54. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #55 revealed an admission date of 01/26/24 and a discharge date of 10/11/24. Diagnoses included sepsis, muscle weakness, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and paraplegia. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident #55 was cognitively intact. He was completely dependent on staff for eating, oral care, personal hygiene, showering, toileting, and dressing. Review of the care plan dated 08/06/24 revealed Resident #55 had inappropriate behaviors such as agitation and combativeness,…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2024-06-18 · 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 record review, observation, review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Quality, Safety, and Oversight (QSO) Memo 24-08-NH, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents with chronic wounds and those with indwelling medical devices were placed in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) as required. This affected four residents (#8, #10, #26, and #39) of five residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 50. Findings include: On 06/17/24 from 8:50 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., observations during tour of the facility revealed there were no residents in EBP. There were several residents throughout the facility that had indwelling urinary catheters or wounds that were not in EBP as required. 1. A review of records for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 12/28/22 with diagnoses including obstructive uropathy. The resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the care plan updated on 05/21/24 revealed Resident #8 was at risk for infection related to the indwelling urinary catheter, and staff was to wear a gown and gloves…

    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 before2024-06-18 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interview, review of the medication error report review, facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the proper route of medication administration for Resident #51. This affected one resident (#51) of eight residents reviewed for proper medication administration. The facility census was 50. Findings include: Review of the medical records revealed Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 05/20/24. Significant diagnoses included paraplegia, bacteremia, stage IV pressure ulcers (Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often include undermining and tunneling.) to the right and left buttocks, diabetes mellitus type II, and infection and inflammatory reaction due to cardiac valve prothesis. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, review of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) for Prescription Processes, observation of medication administration and interview the facility failed to ensure nurses followed acceptable standards of practice for obtaining medication orders. This affected two (Residents #45 and #151) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 42. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #151 revealed an admission date of 02/18/23 and a physician order dated 02/19/23 for vitamin B12 oral tablet 500 micrograms (mcg) give 500 mcg by mouth one time a day. On 03/01/23 at 8:52 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #28 was observed administering medication to Resident #151. While preparing Resident #151's medication for administration RN #28 stated he was unable to locate the appropriate dose of guaifenesin (expectorant) or vitamin B12, stating he would have to administer them later. A request was made for RN #28 to notify the surveyor when the medication was located for observation. 2. Record review for Resident #45 revealed and admission date of…

    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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatments were applied to a pressure ulcer for one resident (Resident #5) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 42. Findings include: Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed diagnoses included left hip fracture, diabetes mellitus, and macular degeneration. An order dated 02/21/23 indicated the wound bed on the coccyx was to be irrigated with normal saline then covered with calcium alginate (a treatment for wounds) and a foam dressing every day and as necessary. A wound consultant note dated 02/27/23 indicated Resident #5 had a stage three pressure ulcer on the coccyx (full thickness tissue loss without bone, tendon or muscle being exposed). Instructions revealed to continue calcium alginate to aid in autolytic debridement of the wound. On 03/02/23 between 11:00 A.M. and 11:20 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #22 was observed gathering supplies to complete Resident #5's dressing change to the pressure ulcer on her coccyx. LPN #22 gathered normal…

    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 · D2023-03-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly and consistently record bowel movements for assessment of constipation for Resident #9. This affected one (Resident #9) of 12 residents interviewed regarding constipation. The facility census was 42. Findings include: Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 and diagnoses including right hip fracture, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, arthritis, pain in the right leg and neuropathy. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 was able to make herself understood. Resident #9 was dependent for toilet use. A plan of care initiated 02/15/23 indicated Resident #9 had potential for constipation related to decreased mobility and medications. The stated goal was for Resident #9 to have a bowel movement at least every three days. Interventions included observing for and documenting bowel movements, observing for complaints of abdominal discomfort and abdominal distention,…

    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 Assessment and Care Planning 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 COUNTRY CLUB REHABILITATION CAMPUS — 7 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.9+0.1 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.3+0.7 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.0+1.0 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 54.4-1.4 vs chain
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)

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

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
GRESOCK, JOSHUAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 12/01/2017
HARRIS, JANETIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF30%since 11/05/2024
HOLLAND, BENJAMINIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 11/05/2024
HOLLAND, NICHOLASIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 11/05/2024
HOLLAND, NOAHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 11/05/2024
HOLLAND-GRESOCK, ADAMIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 11/05/2024
HOLLAND-GRESOCK, PATRICIAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 11/05/2024
MUIRDEN-HOLLAND, JOHNIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 11/21/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-18.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$526K
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 51%Medicare 11%Other / private 38%

This home reported $526K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$349per resident / day
operating cost
$10,611per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$295per 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 365855. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next