Joshua Tree Care Center
27500 Mill Rd, North Olmsted, OH 44070 · For profit - Individual · 36 certified beds · (440) 777-8444 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.1% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 84.5% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 1.0% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.8% | 8.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.5% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.9% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 36 beds and averages 34.3 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.77 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.48 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.32 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-01-15 · 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 policy review, the facility failed ensure food was labeled and dated in a manner to prevent food contamination and spoilage, failed to ensure expired food was disposed of timely, and failed to ensure food was served to residents in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 35. Findings include: 1. Tour of the facility's main kitchen and kitchenette on 01/12/24 between 8:00 A.M. and 8:33 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #759 revealed the following that was observed and verified at the time of discovery: a. An open plastic container of sour cream with an expiration date of 01/06/25. b. Five packages of raisins with an expiration date of 11/13/24. c. An open package of liquid butter with no date. d. An open package of baking soda with no date. e. An open package of sprinkles with no date. f. An open package of marshmallows with no date. g. Four packages of orange juice thickener with a best-by date of 11/15/24. h. A peanut butter container in both the main kitchen area and kitchenette…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 develop a person-centered care plan for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This affected two residents (Residents #10 and #24) out of 15 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 35. Finding include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed and admittance date of 10/04/24 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), venous insufficiency, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, dementia, type II diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #10's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition and had moderate depression. The resident required supervision with activities of daily living. No behaviors were noted. The resident was recorded as having received antidepressant medications. Review of Resident #10's care plan dated 12/27/24 revealed the resident had potential for psychosocial well-being problems and was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure showers were completed for Resident #4. This affected one resident (Resident #4) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 35. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/14/22 diagnoses including type II diabetes, heart disease, depression and dementia. Review of Resident #4's care plan dated 10/15/22 revealed she required assistance with bathing and dressing. Review of Resident #4's progress notes revealed a note dated 04/21/23 at 11:18 A.M. which stated the resident requested one shower per week. The resident agreed to receive a shower on Monday mornings. Review of Resident 4's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident required substantial to maximal assistance with showers. Review of Resident #4's shower documentation for December 2024 revealed the resident received 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 · F2023-03-09 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the service of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight hours a day seven days a week as required. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 30. Findings Include: Review of facility staffing schedules revealed on 04/02/22, 04/03/22, 04/16/22, 04/17/22, 04/30/22, 05/01/22, 05/14/22, 05/28/22, 05/29/22, 06/12/22, and 06/25/22 the facility did not have the services of an RN for eight consecutive hours as required. Interview with the Administrator on 03/07/23 at 5:00 P.M. verified the lack of RN hours on the dates listed above.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-03-09 · 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 and staff interview the facility failed to ensure food was labeled and dated properly and the walk in freezer was maintained in good working condition. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 30. Findings Include: Observation during tour of the kitchen on 03/06/23 between 7:15 A.M. and 7:33 A.M. revealed the following. 1. The walk in in freezer had significant ice build up. Multiple chunks of ice more then six inches in diameter with ice crystals formed were stuck to the freezer shelves. One of the chunks of ice had engulfed a box of tater tots and the box of tater tots was stuck to the ice block and immovable. Hanging from the top of freezer were over ten, six inch long icicles. In addition, there was an undated and opened bag chicken patties, an undated and opened bag of chicken tenders, an undated unlabeled and opened bag of cheese omelettes, an undated and opened box of pork egg rolls, and two undated and opened packages of ham. 2. In the dry storage area there was a dented can of sweet peas, an undated and opened bag of elbow…
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 · F2023-03-09 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement and maintain a comprehensive Quality Assurance Performance and Improvement (QAPI) plan. This had the potential to affect all 30 residents residing at the facility. Findings Include: Review of the QAPI program documentation revealed no evidence the plan addressed the full range of care and services provided by the facility which was comprehensive, data driven and ongoing. There were no indicators focusing on outcomes of care, quality of life or resident rights. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/09/23 at 2:10 P.M. revealed the facility did not have a plan to provide the survey team. The last QAPI plan was completed on 03/16/21. Interview with the Administrator on 03/09/23 at 2:15 P.M. verified the facility was not participating in any data driven ongoing QAPI programs. Several weeks ago she started considering programs for participation. Review of the facility's policy titled Quality Assurance Program, undated revealed the facility would have a program in effect, in order to continue to identify,…
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 · F2023-03-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 and interview the facility failed to implement and monitor measures to prevent the potential spread of Legionella. This had the potential to affect all 30 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Legionella Prevention Program dated November 2017, revealed control measures including physical control measures, water temperature management, disinfectant level controls, visual inspections, environmental testing for pathogens and specific testing protocols with acceptable ranges for control measures. Parameters included: • Hot water to be maintained above a temperature of 122 degrees Fahrenheit (F). • Cold water temperatures to be maintained below 77 degrees F. • Maintain chlorine residual levels at Center of Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended levels. • Maintain chlorine residual logs to ensure safe levels. Review of the Legionella water testing log from 03/01/22 through 03/01/23 revealed one entry indicating on 05/12/22 the water from the faucet at the eye wash station located in the kitchen was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-01-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and that food was properly stored. This affected 47 out 47 residents residing in the facility who received meals from the dietary department. Findings include: A tour of the kitchen was conducted on 01/21/10 with the Registered Nurse #100 from 8:04 A.M. through 8:15 A.M. Dietary Manager (DM) #101 was not yet at the facility. Observation of the kitchen revealed a black cart had food particles on both shelves, dried cake batter on the mixer which was covered by a plastic bag and considered clean, two bags of noodles and black eyed peas were not labeled or dated in the dry storeroom, there was ice was build-up along the back of the walk-in freezer that created ice on top of a box of dinner rolls and two pizza crusts were not labeled or dated. A follow-up visit was conducted on 01/22/20 at 9:14 A.M. and revealed food splatter and white icing were on the ceiling. DM #101 and Registered Dietitian (RD) #102 verified the findings at time of observation.…
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.
- No harm found · C2025-01-15 · tag F0625 — widespreadNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were given written copies of the facility bed hold policy upon discharge/transfer from the facility. This affected two (Residents #21 and #33) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 35. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #33's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/18/24 with diagnoses including kidney failure, hypertension and bipolar disorder. Review of Resident #33's nursing progress noted revealed Resident #33 was discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. Review of both the electronic and hard medical charts for Resident #33 revealed no evidence that Resident #33 was given a copy of the facility's bed hold policy before or immediately after his transfer to the hospital. 2. Review of Resident #21's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/14/22 with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, depressive disorder,…
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.
- No harm found · C2025-01-15 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility assessment and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure its facility assessment contained all required information. This had the potential to affect all 35 residents. The facility census was 35. Findings include: Review of the facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the assessment did not contain information on how the facility would develop and maintain a plan to maximize recruitment and retention of direct care staff. Interview on 01/17/25 at 11:14 A.M. with the Administrator verified the assessment did not contain all required information on recruitment and retention of direct care staff.
- No harm found · B2023-03-09 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 staff interview the facility failed to ensure notices of Medicare non-coverage (NOMNC) contained all required information. This affected two of two residents (Residents #133 and #134) reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility census was 30. Findings Include: Medical record review revealed Resident #133 was admitted to the facility [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and high blood pressure. Resident #133 discharged home [DATE]. Review of the NOMNC given to Resident #133 on [DATE] prior to his discharge revealed the notice stated Your Medicare provider and/or health plan have determined that Medicare with not pay for your current {insert type} services after the effective date indicated above. Medical record review revealed Resident #134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left femur fracture, anxiety disorder and depression. Resident #134 expired at the facility on [DATE]. Review of the NOMNC given to Resident #134 on [DATE] prior to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COURY, KIMBERLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 01/01/1990 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 2 rows in the source record cover these 1 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.
This home reported $492K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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. 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
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 365533. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-15, 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.