Crandall Nursing Home
800 S 15th St, Sebring, OH 44672 · Non profit - Corporation · 150 certified beds · (330) 938-6126 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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 $13,870 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-15)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 | 8.1% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 4.0% | 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 | 7.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 39.0% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.8% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.6% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.38 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.66 | 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.
46.6% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.7% 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 39 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 52% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 46.6%CMS range 35.2–55.8 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 7.3–16.1 | 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 | 66.7% | 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 | 66.7% | 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 | 43.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.9%CMS range 5.0–13.4 | 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 150 beds and averages 112.0 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 38 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.61 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.46 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.00 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.85 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-01-15 · 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, review of hospital records, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #54 was safely transferred in a mechanical lift to prevent fall with major injury. Actual harm occurred on 12/15/25 at approximately 1:10 P.M. when Resident #54, who was cognitively impaired and dependent on staff to transfer, sustained a fall from a mechanical lift device during a staff assisted transfer that resulted in a subarachnoid hemorrhage (brain bleed), which the hospital physician noted had the potential to be a serious and life-threatening condition. The facility identified the fall occurred as a result of human error as staff did not ensure the loop of the sling was properly secured prior to lifting Resident #54 out of her chair during the transfer. This affected one resident (#54) out of five records reviewed for falls and…
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 · D2026-03-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record reviews, observations, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain dignity while dining. This affected three residents (#85, #88, #93) of three reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 112.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dysphagia, major depressive disorder, and presence of cardiac pacemaker. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #85 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) and had a Brief Interview for Metal Status (BIMS) score of seven indicating severe cognitive impairment.2. Review of the medical record for Resident #88 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included orthopedic aftercare, fracture of the right femur, and nocturia. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #88 was dependent on staff for ADL and had a BIMS score of four,…
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 · D2026-03-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide ordered mobility interventions for Resident #10. This affected one resident (#10) of one resident reviewed for range of motion. The facility census was 112.Findings include:Record review of Resident #10 revealed he was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses including cerebral infarction, Parkinson's disease, neurocognitive disorder with [NAME] bodies, and dementia. Review of his orders revealed one dated 06/20/24 for the resident to wear a foam sleeve to the left thumb as tolerated, to be removed for skin checks and hygiene. The order was both discontinued and reordered on 03/20/26, with the clarification that it was to be done three times per day. Review of his range of motion assessment dated [DATE] revealed both hands were contracted. Review of his administration records and progress notes revealed no documentation of the foam sleeve being applied or attempted on any date. Review of his point of care charting revealed six instances…
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 before2026-03-24 · 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 resident record review, observations, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to clearly distinguish, document and implement fall interventions to decrease the risk of falls. This affected one resident (#33) of one reviewed for falls. The facility census was 112.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #33 revealed she was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], after a fall with a major injury, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, fracture of the right clavicle, and multiple fractures of left side ribs. Resident #33 was initially admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of difficulty in walking, weakness, and fracture of radial styloid.Review of the care plan dated 04/28/25 revealed Resident #33 was at risk for falls related to a history of falls and fall related fractures with interventions that included keeping call light within reach and/or call light at hip level when in bed and within reach when in chair.Review of the progress…
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 · Ecited before2025-03-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 observation, staff interview, medical record review, review of safety data sheets (SDS), and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure personal care items, which could cause harm if consumed, were out of reach of residents who were cognitively impaired and residing in the facility's memory care unit. This affected five residents (#6, #7, #49, #58, and #90) and had the potential to affect 19 residents who the facility identified who have cognitive impairment and were independently mobile. The facility identified one resident (#82) who resided on the memory care unit as being immobile. The facility census was 112. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and fatigue. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 12/19/24, revealed Resident #49 was rarely/never understood and required partial/moderate assistance to walk ten feet. Observation 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 · D2025-03-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had accurate advance directive orders in place throughout their medical record and implement the facilities advance directive policy. This affected two (Residents #4 and #109) of 33 residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 112. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure and fracture of the fibula. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 was cognitively intact. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #4 revealed an order dated 02/06/25 for a Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care Arrest (DNRCCA) (meaning invasive or extreme life-supporting measures were allowed under any circumstance except for cardiac or respiratory arrest. In the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest only comfort measures would be initiated)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's 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 Based on record review, review of facility policy, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents had activities to meet their needs, especially on the weekends and evenings. This affected two (Residents #20 and #51) of two residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 112. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses including legal blindness, anxiety disorder and essential hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 exhibited intact cognition. Review of the activity care plan dated 02/03/25 revealed Resident #20 was at risk for social isolation and low activity participation related to blindness and periods of confusion. Interventions dated 02/03/25 included interviewing the resident about past roles, monitor for activity needs, room greetings, respect the resident's preferences and offer to read the daily activity flyer in the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #55's oxygen humidification was labeled and dated and Resident #68's oxygen tubing was changed and dated per facility policy. This affected two (Residents #55 and #68) of three residents reviewed for respiratory therapy. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #55's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #55's respiratory care plan dated 01/25/23 revealed an intervention dated 05/08/23 to administer oxygen as ordered and keep head of bed elevated due to shortness of breath when lying flat. Review of Resident #55's physician orders revealed an order dated 05/25/23 for oxygen therapy per nasal cannula at two liters continuous…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-16 · tag F0713 — isolatedProvide or arrange emergency care by a doctor 24 hours a day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified and responded timely to Resident #116's complaints of pain following a fall. This finding affected one (Resident #116) of three residents reviewed for falls. Findings include: Review of Resident #116's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive disorder and essential tremors. Review of Resident #116's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #116's fall Incident form dated 11/11/24 at 7:50 P.M. revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #918 reported she saw the resident in the Centrum (main television lounge area) when she saw the resident stand up and attempt to walk. Before she could reach her, the resident had fallen on the floor and landed on her right side. The alarm was present in the wheelchair and alarming. CNA #918 stated…
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 · D2022-09-01 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident re-weights were obtained to verify accuracey of weight changes per facility policy. This affected one (Resident #101) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 114. Findings included: Review of Resident #101's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/17/22 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease and hypertension. Further review of the medical record including weight recording identified on 03/26/22 the resident's weight was 280.4 pounds. The next weight recorded on 04/14/22 was 286.8 pounds, a difference of 6.4 pounds from the prior weight. On 04/28/22 the weight recorded was 293.8 pounds, a difference of seven pounds from the prior weight. On 05/07/22 the weight recorded was 279.6 pounds, a difference of 14.2 pounds from the prior weight. On 05/14/22 the weight recorded was 286.6 pounds, a difference of seven pounds from the prior weight. On 05/21/22 the weight recorded was 284.6 pounds. On 07/02/22 the weight recorded was 274.6 pounds, 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 · D2022-09-01 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure hospice records including certification, assessments and visitation notes were available to the facility staff for collaborative care and services to Resident #101. This affected one (Resident #101) of two residents reviewed for hospice services. The facility census was 114. Findings included: Review of Resident #101's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/17/22 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease and hypertension. Further review of the medical record revealed a physician's order dated 08/05/22 to admit the resident to hospice services by Southern Hospice. Further review of the medical record including paper medical chart in the nursing office found no evidence of any type of hospice certification paperwork, hospice assessments or hospice visitation notes. Interview with Unit Secretary #504 on 09/01/22 at 9:45 A.M. verified there was no evidence of any hospice certification paperwork, assessments and/or visitation notes in the resident's medical record or a separate binder located…
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 · C2022-09-01 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure all employees were checked against the Ohio Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to or on their first day of work/hire to ensure the employee did not have a finding entered into the State nurse aide registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property as required. This had the potential to affect all 114 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the personnel file for Registered Nurse (RN) #548 revealed a hire date of 03/28/22. There was no printed evidence of RN #548 being checked against the NAR prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for RN #547 revealed a hire date of 06/13/22. There was no printed evidence of RN #547 being checked against the NAR prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #569 revealed a hire date of 07/05/22. There was no printed evidence of LPN #569 being checked against the NAR prior…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$13,870 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,870 — penalty dated 2026-01-15
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MANNION, DAVID | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/12/2010 |
| ROOSE, RANDI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/30/2019 |
| CASERTA, DANIELE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| DRAKULICH, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| GANT, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2017 |
| KIKO, RUSSELL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/01/2016 |
| MENDEL, RON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| MYERS, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2017 |
| NEW, GREG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| SCARPITTI, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/01/2017 |
| WILLIAMS, BILL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365574. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-24, 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.