Briar Hill Health Campus
600 Sterling Dr, North Baltimore, OH 45872 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 54 certified beds · (419) 257-2421 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.7% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.6% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.1% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.2% | 25.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.7% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.4% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
63.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 39 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.0% 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 20 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 63.6%CMS range 53.1–75.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 7.0–16.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 65.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 70.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 55.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.4–14.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 54 beds and averages 51.1 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.25 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-20 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed timely. This affected one (#41) of two residents review for discharged resident assessments. The census was 43. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record review revealed Resident #41 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged home on [DATE]. Diagnoses included fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur, hypertensive chronic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease stage 4, essential (primary) hypertension, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and unspecified osteoarthritis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/09/24, revealed the resident had an admission assessment completed. No further MDS assessments were entered. Interview on 06/18/24 at 4:37 P.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #559 and Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #591 verified Resident #41 did not have a discharge MDS assessment completed.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an accurate resident assessment was completed for an anticoagulant medication. This affected one (#21) of thirteen residents reviewed for accurate resident assessments. The facility census was 43. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris, unspecified dementia, type two diabetes mellitus without complications, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and essential hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/06/24, revealed the resident was rarely understood. According to the MDS assessment one of the high-risk medications the resident was taking included anticoagulant medications. Review of physician orders dated April and May 2024 (including discontinued orders) and current orders for June 2024, revealed no anticoagulant medications had been…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2021-12-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to properly store foods and maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner. This affected all 49 residents in the facility who the facility identified as receiving food from the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the facility kitchen on 12/19/21 at 9:45 A.M. revealed pre-sliced deli meats stored in a plastic bin on the bottom shelf of the walk in refrigerator. Inside the plastic bin revealed opened bags of bologna, corned beef, pepperoni, ham, and turkey which were placed inside plastic zip sealed bags inside the plastic bin. The bag of ham had a slimy liquid covering the bag. Further inspection revealed a slimy liquid covered all the bags of meat inside the plastic bin and a bag of sliced bologna was noted to not be fully sealed and leaking the slimy liquid. Observation of a food label sticker placed on the bag of bologna revealed a used by date of 11/28/21. A second bag of bologna inside the plastic bin had a food label sticker with a used by date of 12/13/21. Interview on 12/19/21 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-21 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, staff and resident interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to assess a resident to determine their appropriateness for self-administering medications. This affected one (#42) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified no current residents assessed as able to self-administer their medications. The census was 49. Findings include: Review of Resident #42's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/05/21. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, dry eye syndrome of the unspecified lacrimal gland, spinal stenosis, major depression, acute kidney failure, paranoid personality disorder, and delusional disorders. Review of the most recently completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/02/21, revealed Resident #42 had intact cognition. Review of Resident #42's comprehensive care plan, last reviewed on 10/18/21, revealed no care plan for Resident #42 to self-administer medications. Review of a physician order dated 12/03/21 revealed Resident #42…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected two (#32 and #44) of 24 residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed ad admission date of 11/03/21. Diagnoses included COVID-19, cerebral infarction (stroke), type II diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and major depressive disorder. Additional review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/21, revealed Resident #32 was cognitively intact, required supervision with toilet use, and was always continent of bowel and bladder. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 09/12/21. Diagnoses included wedge compression fracture of the second and fourth lumbar vertebra, heart disease, end stage renal disease, type II diabetes, difficulty walking, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. Additional review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 11/27/21,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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, and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor for edema and ensure non-pharmaceutical interventions were implemented to minimize the occurrence of lower extremity edema for one (#36) of 24 residents reviewed for timely care and treatment. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, liver disease, anemia, hyperlipidemia, benign prostatic hyperplasia, COVID-19, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, depression, and history of acute kidney failure. Review of the most current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/25/21, identified the resident with moderately impaired cognition, requires staff supervision for the completion of activities of daily living, utilizes a wheel chair for mobility, frequently incontinent of bladder, continent of bowel, and receives a diuretic medication daily.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-21 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow up with a physician for treatment of fungal infection on the toe nails for one (#24) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive foot care. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the record for Resident #24 revealed an admission to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, acute kidney failure, dysphasia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, major depression, dementia, cerebral vascular disease, and hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/15/21, Resident #24 was alert, able to make needs known, dependent on staff for the completion of activities of daily living, and at risk for skin breakdown with no concerns listed. Review of a physician clinical note dated 12/01/21 documented Resident #24 with multiple toenails with fungal infection. The clinical note lacked documentation implementing a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of Safety Data Sheet, the facility failed to ensure hazardous chemicals on the 100-Hall of the facility were secured. This had the potential to affect one resident (#251) residing on the 100-Hall, and identified by the facility as being cognitively impaired and independently mobile. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #251 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included COVID-19, altered mental status, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/21, revealed Resident #251 was severely cognitively impaired. Observation on 12/19/21 at 10:11 A.M. of the soiled linen room located next to the shower room on the 100-Hall revealed the door was not locked. Inside the soiled linen room was a cabinet hanging on the wall. A sign posted on the cabinet stated not to leave the key in the lock. Further…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, resident interview, staff interview, and family interview, the facility failed to preserve the dignity of one resident by having her use a bedside commode instead of providing her assistance to use the toilet in the bathroom which would provide privacy. This affected one (Resident #7) of one resident reviewed for resident rights. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #7 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances, unspecified lack of coordination, mono-arthritis, left knee, pain in right wrist, muscle weakness and difficulty in walking. Review of the plan of care for Resident #7 revealed the resident was at risk for falling related to a history of falls and decline in her Activity of Daily Living (ADL)'s. Her goal was to remain free from falls with major injury. Her interventions included the resident required two staff assistance with transfers and to encourage the commode during bedtime care.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-11 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a resident with a special shoe accommodation. This affected one Resident (#37) of three residents reviewed for accommodations. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/14/15. Diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, wedge compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, history of falling, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 12/11/18 for Resident #37 to be fitted for diabetic shoes. Review of the progress notes dated 12/12/18 at 11:18 A.M., revealed notification had been made to a shoe company initiating the process of retrieving diabetic specialty shoes for Resident #37. Review of Resident #37's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] 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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES — 123 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 122; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRIFFIN-AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT III, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| GRIFFIN-AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT IV HOLDINGS, LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE INCOME OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| TRILOGY HOLDINGS NT-HCI, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2018 |
| KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| CORBIN, KATHY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/21/2011 |
| FIGHTMASTER, LISA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| BARBER, ROBIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/03/2018 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2001 |
| BRYANT, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/06/2016 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/21/2017 |
| PROSKY, DANNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| STREIFF, MATHIEU | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| WILLIAMSON, BRADLEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/21/2014 |
| TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| MORRIS, AMBER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/30/2019 |
8 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.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365387. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-20, 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.