Autumn Court
1925 E Fourth St, Ottawa, OH 45875 · For profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (419) 523-4370 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $25,495 in federal fines (most recent 2026-06-25)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 |
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 improved from 4 to 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 | 2.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 94.1% | 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 | 3.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.6% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 51.6% | 8.8% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.59 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.43 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 50 beds and averages 46.9 residents a day — about 94% 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.32 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.72 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.26 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as 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
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.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THIS DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on closed medical record review, staff interview, paramedic interview, review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, review of the hospital records and review of the facility policies, the facility failed to ensure residents were served foods in the physician ordered diet texture to meet individual needs. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and serious life-threatening harm, negative health outcomes and/or death on 05/02/26 for one (#09) resident when Resident #09, who had a chopped meat diet order, was able to consume a piece of chicken that was not prepared per their physician prescribed diet order. Subsequently, Resident #09 choked, became unresponsive and required staff intervention to perform the Heimlich maneuver (a first-aid method for choking that includes abdominal thrusts), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and EMS response to remove the food from the trachea where it…
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 before2024-10-17 · 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 the dishwasher manufacturer's guidelines, the facility failed to ensure the dishwasher washed and rinsed dishes at temperatures specified by the manufacturer's guidelines. This had the potential to affect all 48 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Observation on 10/16/24 at approximately 11:00 A.M. revealed the dishwasher labeled with Machine Operational Requirements with a wash temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F) minimum and a rinse temperature of 120 degrees F minimum. Further observation revealed Dietary Director (DD) #114 running one cycle of the dishwasher and the was temperature reached 80 degrees F during the wash and a rinse temperature of 88 degrees F. Concurrent interview with DD #114 revealed the dishwasher was a low-temperature machine and should wash and rinse at approximately 100 degrees F and 110 degrees F respectively. Two additional wash cycles were run, and the dishwasher temperatures peaked at a wash temperature of 88 degrees F and a rinse temperature…
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 · E2024-10-17 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature throughout the facility. This affected 18 residents (#9, #10, #13, #15, #16, #17, #19, #22, #24, #29, #32, #33, #35, #36, #40, #42, #43, and #45) by the uncomfortable temperatures in the facility. Additionally the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected three residents (#8, #19, and #43) of 16 residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 48. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 10/16/24 at 11:38 A.M. with Resident #33 revealed the heater not working or on at this time. Heater elements appear to be old and in disrepair. Cold air observed coming from the windows. Resident #33 stated his room was cold and he was cold last night. Resident #33 wanted his heater fixed. Interview and observation on 10/16/24 at 11:45 A.M. with Regional Director of Facility Management (RDFM) #156 confirmed their temperature gun showed a room temperature ranging from 60-65 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in Residents #33…
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 · E2024-10-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation of medication administration, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication cart was secured at all times when unattended. This had the potential to affect all residents but three residents. The facility reported all residents were cognitively impaired and all but three residents were independently mobile or able to self-propel in a wheelchair. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Observation on 10/16/24 at 7:47 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #154 prepared medication at the medication cart which was parked adjacent to the dining room with the drawers facing away from the seating area. There was a half wall approximately two to two and one half feet high, between the cart and the actual dining room. During the observation, there were approximately ten to twelve residents in the surrounding area, with some residents arriving and departing breakfast service. After preparing medication for Resident #18, LPN #154 failed to lock the cart, walked away, and sat for approximately two minutes, in a chair next 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-17 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of production recipes, the facility failed to ensure pureed foods were prepared properly. This affected one (#5) of one resident who received pureed food in the facility. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Observations beginning on 10/16/24 at 10:48 A.M. revealed [NAME] #109 receiving guidance from Dietary Director (DD) #114 regarding the preparation of one pureed portion of the noon meal. Interview with DD #114 revealed the noon meal consisted of beef pot roast, vegetable blend, mashed potatoes, and pumpkin pie. [NAME] #109 pureed and plated each food item separately. Observation of the pureed beef pot roast revealed a thick liquid with several small pieces of what appeared to be ground beef. Observation of the pureed vegetable blend appeared to be thin soup with several large pieces of vegetables. Observation on 10/16/24 at 11:55 A.M. revealed Resident #5 in the dining room received her noon meal tray with pureed items which included beef pot roast and vegetable blend. Interview and observation on 10/16/24 at 11:56 A.M.…
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 · D2024-10-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of policy for medication administration, the facility failed to practice appropriate hand hygiene during medication administration. This affected two residents (Residents #13 and #15) of three residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 48. Findings include: Observation on 10/16/24 at 7:35 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #132 prepared 13 oral medications for Resident #13 by punching them from a punch card and/or removing them from a multi-dose container. During this preparation, LPN #132 touched each of the 13 tablets with bare skin while removing the medications from the packages and placing each them in the medication cup. LPN #132 then administered the medications to Resident #13. Observation on 10/16/24 at 7:41 A.M. revealed LPN #132 prepared six oral medications for Resident #15 by punching them from a punch card and/or removing them from a multi-dose container. During this preparation, LPN #132 touched each of the six tablets with bare skin while removing the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-07-07 · 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 observations, resident and staff interview, review of the facility infection control log and review of the owner's manual for the chemical dishwasher, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff with skin conditions kept their arms properly covered and failed to ensure the chemical dishwashing machine maintained the appropriate level of chemicals for effective sanitation. This had the potential to affect all 49 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Observation on 07/05/22 at 8:51 A.M. of the kitchen found Dietary Staff (DS) #412 wearing a short sleeve black shirt. DS #412's arms were exposed and observed having flakey, white, scale like skin on both his right and left forearms. DS #412's right forearm was observed to have cracks with scabs and dried red areas between his elbow and his wrist as well as on the back of his right hand. DS #412 was observed preparing batter for pancakes and cooking pancakes on the stove. Interview on 07/05/22 at 9:33 A.M. with Resident #22 revealed the food was very good but the cook had some white…
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 · D2022-07-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, resident and staff interview, medical record review, review of a facility investigation, review of self-reported incidents (SRI's), and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the State Survey Agency. This affected one (#38) of one residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 49. Findings include: Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/25/21. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, muscle weakness, anxiety, major depression, hyperlipidemia, unspecified psychosis, and unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances. Review of the most recently completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was assessed with severely impaired cognition, was assessed with physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others one to three days during the seven day look back period, and assessed with other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others (e.g.,…
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 · D2022-07-07 · 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
Based on observation, medial record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to include a resident's vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) used to treat seizures. This affected one (#29) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 01/03/20 and a readmission date of 10/13/20. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebral infarction (stroke), epilepsy, mild intellectual disability, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/21/22, revealed Resident #29 was cognitively intact, required supervision for ADL's, had a seizure disorder. Review of the plan of care, initiated 10/26/20, revealed Resident #29 was at risk for adverse effects and/or side effects from anticonvulsant therapy and had a diagnosis of epilepsy. The care plan for Resident #29's contained no documentation regarding the use of a VNS -…
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 · D2022-07-07 · 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 facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented as care planned. This affected one resident (#40) of two residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of Resident #40's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/21/03. Diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait, schizoaffective disorder, pseudobulbar affect, and epilepsy. Review of Resident #40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five out of 15 indicating Resident #40 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #40 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Resident #40 displayed verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others four to six days during the review period. Resident #40 had no falls since the last review. Review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, review of the resident council minutes, resident interview, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to follow through on resident requests voiced during the resident council meetings. This had the potential to affect one (#39) of three residents who regularly attend resident council. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of the resident council minutes dated 08/28/18, under the old business section, revealed a request for a bench for outside had not been completed or approved. The residents would like a different view to give an opportunity to view wildlife. New business indicated Resident #39 would like to see a bench with higher seats out on the patio. Review of the resident council minutes dated 09/27/18 revealed no response from maintenance yet regarding the bench. Review of the resident council minutes dated 10/29/18 revealed, under the old business section, Maintenance Director (MM) #121 stated he had asked about building benches with higher seats. Review of the Resident/Family Council Response Form 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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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
Based on record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the advanced directives were accurately documented in the medical records. This affected three (#15, #17 and #28) of four residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 45. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record of Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 01/07/19. Diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, restless leg syndrome and kyphosis to cervical region. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment ,dated 04/04/19, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the care plan initiated 01/14/19 indicated DPOA (durable power of attorney) has identified the advanced directive of Resident #15 as Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC) - Arrest. Review of the form titled DNRCC, dated 02/01/19, indicated Resident #15's advanced directive as do not resuscitate comfort care arrest. The form described this as no life saving measures were to be performed in the event of a cardiac or respiratory arrest. Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-13 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to refer three residents to be re-screened for pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) Level II services. This affected two (#2 and #17) of three residents reviewed for PASARR services. The facility census was 45. Finding include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #2 revealed the resident had been admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (10/15/12), cerebrovascular disease, general anxiety disorder (10/16/14), major depressive disorder (7/25/12) and impulse disorder (9/19/16). Review of the PASARR assessment, dated 09/21/11, reflected the resident had no indications of serious mental illness, and listed a diagnosis of depression only. The assessment tool had not been updated upon admission to reflect the current diagnoses at that time of schizoaffective disorder, general anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and impulse disorder. Review of an annual…
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 · C2024-10-17 · tag F0949 — failed to train staff on dementia and abuse — widespreadProvide behavior health training consistent with the requirements and as determined by a facility assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of personnel files, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure newly hired State Tested Nurse Aides (STNA) received specialty behavioral training. This had the potential to affect all 48 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the personnel file for STNA #142 revealed a hire date of 08/07/24. The file contained no evidence STNA #142 received training on mental health behaviors. Review of the personnel file for STNA #148 revealed a hire date of 08/15/24. The file contained no evidence STNA #148 received training on mental health behaviors. Interview and concurrent review of personnel files on 10/17/24 at 1:49 P.M. with Human Resources Director (HRD) #120 confirmed the facility provided no formal specialized training for mental health behaviors for newly hired staff. HRD #120 further confirmed STNA #142 and STNA #148 did not receive specialized training for mental health behaviors. Review of the Facility Assessment, dated 07/15/24, revealed the facility was a secure building, specializing in mental health behaviors.
“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
$25,495 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $25,495 — penalty dated 2026-06-25
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIONSTONE CARE — 24 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 23 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIONSTONE HZ OPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2023 |
| KAZARNOVSKY, SOLOMON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 01/01/2023 |
| STEIN, ABBA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 01/01/2023 |
| CUSNER, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/27/2025 |
| DEGYANSKY, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| GOLDISH, ELIEZER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/09/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
About 87% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $195K 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
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 366217. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-17, 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.