Hill View Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Cente
1610 28th Street, Portsmouth, OH 45662 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 72 certified beds · (740) 354-3135 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 (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $55,755 in federal fines (most recent 2026-06-10)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | Not rated |
| 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 5.5% | 5.3% | 15.4% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.9% | 30.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.1% | 25.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 3.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.5% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.4% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.3% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.33 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.55 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
53.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 108 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 52 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 46% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 14% — 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 | 53.2%CMS range 44.1–61.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 8.2–16.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 51.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 32.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 40.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.4% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.4%CMS range 3.0–11.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.29 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.34 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above 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 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-06-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program to prevent the development of avoidable pressure ulcers, failed to thoroughly assess a resident's skin, and failed to timely identify pressure ulcers until they had reached an advanced stage. Actual Harm occurred on 10/13/25 when Resident #61, who was cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for bed mobility, developed an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left heel (a full thickness wound where damage depth is hidden by slough or eschar making an accurate stage assessment impossible.) This affected one (Resident #61) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 69. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 09/19/25 with diagnoses including displaced subtrochanteric fracture of left femur, Alzheimer's disease, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart…
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.
- Actual harm · G2025-12-10 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility's fall investigation, review of the hospital notes, review of the Medscape guidance, and review of the facility's pain management policy, the facility failed to provide adequate pain management for one resident. This result in Actual Harm for Resident #64 who screamed out in pain at multiple staff, receiving a delay and appropriate treatment of pain beginning 10/30/25 at 6:30 P.M. to 10/31/25 at 12:40 A.M. This resulted in an emergency room visit for acute pain and reporting a severe pain level of nine (pain scale from zero indicating no pain to ten being worst pain). This affected one (Resident #64) of three residents reviewed for pain control. The facility census was 72.Findings include:Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #64 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to another facility on 11/10/25. Diagnoses included osteoporosis, osteopenia, atherosclerosis, and a history of bone demineralization. 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 · F2026-06-10 · 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 facility policy, the facility failed to properly store food items to avoid possible contamination. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 69 residents. Findings include: Observation on 06/01/26 at 9:12 A.M. of the kitchen dry storage area revealed there was a large 102 ounce can of vanilla pudding on the shelf with visible dents along the rim of the can. Interview on 06/01/26 at 9:12 A.M. with Director of Dietary Services (DDS) #932 verified the dented can of vanilla pudding should have been sent back as the contents were not suitable for use. Observation on 06/04/26 at 09:45 A.M. of the kitchen dry storage area revealed there were two 102 ounce cans of ketchup both of which were dented along the top seam of the can. Interview on 06/04/26 at 9:45 A.M. with DDS #932 verified the cans should have been returned to the supplier since the cans were dented and should not have been put on the shelf for use. Review of the facility policy titled Food and Supply Purchasing…
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 · F2026-06-10 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 all kitchen garbage receptacles including outdoor dumpsters were equipped with proper fitting lids to deter animals and pests. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 69 residents. Findings include: Observations on 06/01/26 at 10:20 A.M. and at 2:20 P.M. revealed there were two outside dumpsters near the loading dock which were not covered with lids. Observation on 06/02/26 at 10:51 A.M. with the Administrator revealed the outside dumpsters near the loading dock were not covered with lids. Interview on 06/02/26 at 10:51 A.M. with the Administrator verified the dumpsters did not have lids. The Administrator stated the city had delivered the two dumpsters without lids last week and he had notified the city officials the facility had food service and required lids on all outdoor trash bins. The Administrated stated the lids would be brought out on 06/02/26 or 06/03/26. Observations on 06/03/26 at 09:20 A.M. and at 3:20 P.M. revealed the outside…
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 · D2026-06-10 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of online medication resources, the facility failed to ensure antipsychotic medications were only ordered for an appropriate indication. This affected one (Resident #23) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 69 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 06/23/25 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and depression. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #23 revealed an order dated 02/24/26 for Zyprexa 2.5 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth daily at bedtime for unspecified dementia and an order dated 06/03/26 for Risperdal 0.5 mg three tablets by mouth every morning and every night for a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #23 dated 04/02/26 revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. Interview on 06/03/26 at 1:13 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility had administered Zyprexa and Risperdal to Resident #23…
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 · D2026-06-10 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a contracture received care and services to prevent a decline in the contracture. This affected one (Resident #17) of two residents reviewed for limited range of motion. The facility census was 69 residents. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 06/20/25 with diagnoses including contracture of the right hand, chronic pain, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #17 dated 03/30/26 revealed the resident had impaired cognition and had functional limitation in range of motion to one side of the upper extremities. Review of the active care plan for Resident #17 revealed it did not include interventions to prevent a further decline in range of motion or to treat the resident's contractures. Observation on 06/02/26 at 12:52 P.M. revealed Resident #17 was sitting in her room in a wheelchair at her dining table with her right hand closed up in a pinching position. Resident #17 was picking at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-08 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in good repair. This had the potential to effect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 64.Findings include:Observations on 08/08/25 from 10:22 A.M. through 11:30 A.M., during a tour of the facility, revealed a large portion of the ceiling in the second-floor dining room was missing. The area below the missing ceiling had yellow caution tape set up to keep people from walking underneath it. Continued observation of the second-floor hallway, outside of Resident #2's room, revealed discolored ceiling tiles and water was leaking down into a large and a small trash can placed underneath. The ceiling tiles had a black substance on them, which appeared mold or mildew like. Further observation of the third-floor hallway, located outside of Resident #63's room, revealed discolored ceiling tiles from what appeared to be water damage, and the carpet underneath the area was wet. The ceiling vents, located directly inside the doorways of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-08 · 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
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to update the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) with new mental illness diagnoses for residents. This affected two (Residents #28 and #33) of 18 residents reviewed for PASARR completion. The facility census was 53 residents. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 10/04/19 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, hypertension, encephalopathy and major depressive disorder. On 09/07/21 Resident #28 was diagnosed with unspecified psychosis. Review of the admission PASARR document for Resident #28 dated 09/04/19 revealed the had no indications of serious mental illness or developmental disability. Review of the plan of care for Resident #28 dated 02/26/24 revealed the resident had unspecified psychosis with paranoia, hallucinations and increased anxiety. Interventions included the following: monitor and record occurrences of target behavior symptoms such as pacing, wandering, disrobing, inappropriate response to verbal communication,…
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 · D2024-07-08 · 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
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to provide adequate nail care to dependent residents. This affected one (Resident #13) of five dependent residents reviewed for bathing and nail care. The facility census was 53 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 08/31/22 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, dementia, and diabetes mellitus type two. Review of the care plan for Resident #13 dated 08/31/22 revealed staff would clean and trim the resident's nails weekly, as needed, and when soiled. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #13 dated 04/12/24 revealed the resident was unable to make her needs known as she rarely/never was understood. Resident #13 was dependent on the assistance of staff with bathing and nail care. Review of shower sheet for Resident #13 dated 06/30/24 revealed the resident had received bathing per the schedule with nail care documented as completed 06/30/24. Observation on 06/30/24 at 1:38 P.M. of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-24 · 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 observations, interviews, record reviews, and online guidance, the facility failed to adequately implement care plans and interventions. This affected three residents (#3, #29, and #31) of 20 residents whose care plans were reviewed during the annual survey. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #29 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, stage three chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and systolic heart failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/03/22, revealed this resident had moderately impaired cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 03. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of the active care plans for this resident revealed no care plan was implemented for wandering, being at risk for elopement, or the use of 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 · D2022-06-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy the facility failed to revise a resident's plan of care to reflect the pressure ulcer prevention device of Prevalon Boots. This affected one of six residents (#12) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 07/20/17 with diagnoses including dementia, unspecified psychosis, weakness and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (3.0) dated 04/08/22 revealed Resident #12 had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #12 was totally dependent on one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Resident #12 had impaired range of motion to bilateral upper extremities. Resident #12 had no skin impairments documented. Review of the physician telephone orders for Resident #12 revealed an order dated 05/03/22 for the resident to wear Prevalon boots while in bed. Staff may remove for dressing and hygiene per resident's tolerance. Review…
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 before2022-06-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure pressure prevention devices were in place as ordered by the physician. The affected two of five residents (#12 and #3) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 03/05/22 with diagnoses including osteoarthritis, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 for Resident #3 dated 06/12/22 revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors. Resident #3 required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Resident #3 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #3 had an unstageable pressure ulcer (defined as full-thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed…
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 · D2022-06-24 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place as per the plan of care and failed to ensure evidence of monitoring a resident who was at risk for elopement. This affected two residents (#29 and #44) of the five residents reviewed for falls and elopement during the annual survey. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #29 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, stage three chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and systolic heart failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/03/22, revealed this resident had moderately impaired cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 03. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of the active care plans for this resident revealed no care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-24 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring of a dialysis residents AV shunt. This affected the one resident (#31) who was receiving dialysis while residing in the facility. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Record review for Resident #31 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including stage four chronic kidney disease, dementia without behavioral disturbances, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 04/23/22, revealed this resident had moderately impaired cognation evidenced by a BIMS assessment score of 07. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility and extensive assistance from one staff member for transfers and toileting. Review of the care plan, dated 5/23/22, revealed this resident received dialysis. The only intervention listed was to send 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 · D2022-06-24 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 interviews the facility failed to provide an appropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic and failed to discontinue an antianxiety medication due to non-use. This affected two residents(Resident #44 and Resident #201) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #201 on 06/22/22 at 3:28 P.M. revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses: left femur fracture, dysphagia, muscle weakness, anemia, depression, anxiety, hypertension, carotid artery stenosis, gastroenteritis, chronic kidney disease, diarrhea, and transient ischemic attacks. This resident is currently alert and oriented to person, place, and time per admission assessment and nursing notes as this resident does not have an active BIMS score as this resident has been residing in the facility for approximately 2 days. Review of Physician Orders revealed this resident is receiving 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 · D2022-06-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored appropriately and provided for the use intended. This affected one resident (#48) out of the 49 residents observed during the annual survey. The facility census was 49. Findings include: Record review for Resident #48 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia without behavioral disturbances, anxiety, insomnia, and asthma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/05/22, revealed this resident had mildly impaired cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 11. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of the care plan, dated 06/13/22, revealed this resident had asthma and shortness of breath. Interventions included to give…
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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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
$55,755 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $55,755 — penalty dated 2026-06-10
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-07-08 for 22 days
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEVINGER, DAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/01/2025 |
| MAYER, MOISHE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/01/2025 |
| ANGEL, TIMOTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2025 |
| WALKER, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2025 |
| HC FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/15/2025 |
| PORTSMOUTH PROPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/15/2025 |
| PPG EE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/15/2025 |
| ZANZIPER, NAFTALI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/15/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 365444. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-10, 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.