Belmont Manor
51999 Guirino Drive, St Clairsville, OH 43950 · For profit - Corporation · 57 certified beds · (740) 695-4404 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 84.3% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.5% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.3% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.6% | 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 | 96.3% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.98 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.10 | 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.
51.3% 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 29 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 65% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 51.3%CMS range 38.2–64.5 | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 5.7–15.0 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 57 beds and averages 51.1 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.75 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.64 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.24 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure food that was expired and noted with mold. This affected all 52 residents in the facility. The facility census was 52.Findings include:Observations on 02/23/26 between 8:40 A.M. and 8:57 A.M. during the initial tour of the facility kitchen revealed an open cardboard box of on the bottom shelf in the pantry area with large Idaho potatoes. Several potatoes appeared to have a dusty fuzzy brownish blue film on them and some of the potatoes were cut in half with the dusty fuzzy brownish blue film on the open side of the potato. Further observation revealed a gallon of chocolate milk about one quarter full with an expiration date of 02/22/26 in the walk-in refrigerator. Interview on 02/23/26 at 8:58 A.M. with the dietary manager (DM) #202 revealed confirmation that the potatoes had some type of brownish blue fuzzy layer on them and removed the potatoes and placed them in the trash. DM #202 further confirmed the chocolate milk had an expiration date of 02/22/26 and removed the milk from the refrigerator 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 · E2026-03-03 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
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 residents or resident representatives knew in advance what charges a facility may impose against a resident's personal funds. This affected four residents (#8, #5, #22, #35 ) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 52. Findings include:1.Record review revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, insomnia, diabetes, and transient ischemic attack.Review of Resident #8's quarterly banking statement revealed a charge in the amount of $7.05 titled bank service charge dated 01/31/26.2. Record review revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder, and paraplegia. Review of Resident #5's banking statement revealed a charge in the amount of $5.47 titled bank service charge dated 01/31/26. 3. Review of Resident #22's record revealed the resident was admitted on…
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 before2026-03-03 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, hospital record review, staff interviews, review of literature from the American Heart Association, and policy review, the facility failed to timely assess and monitor the cardiopulmonary status, including weights. This affected one resident (#25) of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 52.Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of congestive heart failure. Resident #25's other diagnoses included respiratory failure, heart disease, anemia (low blood count), chronic kidney disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and continuous oxygen use. Review of the nursing assessment completed on 01/05/26 upon admission to the facility revealed Resident #25 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time, lung sounds were clear, vital signs were stable, oxygen at two liters per minute, and 3+pitting edema (significant swelling on a 0-4 scale with 0 being none and 4 being the most…
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 before2026-03-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) to reduce the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms in high contact resident care activities. This affected one resident (#20) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 52.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date for 02/13/26. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, overactive bladder, allergic rhinitis, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, need for assistance for personal care, difficulty in walking, lack of coordination, constipation, history of falling, pressure ulcer of sacral region, unstageable.Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed a Minimum Data Set (MDS) version 3.0, dated 02/20/26. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)scored a 15 on a 0-10 scale. A score of 15 indicated intact cognitive function. The MDS further indicated the resident used a walker. There was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-16 · 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, record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure sanitary kitchen practices. This had the potential to affect all the individuals in the facility except for Resident #9 who did not receive nutrition from the kitchen. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Observation of the kitchen 08/05/24 at 8:26 A.M. of Dietary #572 revealed she was washing dishes. Interview at the time of the observation revealed Dietary #572 thought the facility had a high temperature dishwasher. There were dishes that have been run through the dishwasher on the draining board. Dietary #576 did not know if they had a high or low temperature dishwasher. The surveyor noticed the facility had a low temperature chemical dishwasher. Dietary #572 was asked if she could test the sanitation in the dishwasher. Dietary #572 said she does not usually test the dishwasher, and stated Dietary #588 does the testing. Dietary #572 found a container of chlorine strips on the top of the dishwasher. She removed a strip opened the dishwasher and swished a strip around in 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 · E2024-08-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident dignity was maintained during use of indwelling urinary catheters for three residents (#6, #12, and #22) and when dining for five residents (#3, #19, #21, #44 and #46). This affected eight residents (#3, #6, #12, #19, #21, #22, #44, and #46). The census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed a 10/16/19 admission with diagnoses including Parkinson disease, end stage renal disease, Tourette's disorder, schizoaffective disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, and moderate intellectual disability. Review of the 06/26/24 quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) included the resident was moderately impaired for daily decision making, had an indwelling catheter and upper and lower extremity impairment on both sides. Observation on 08/05/24 at 1:12 P.M. revealed the resident had a urinary drainage…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were revised. This affected four residents (#15, #21, #44 and #46) of 18 residents sampled. The census was 51. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's type dementia, anxiety, breast cancer and arthritis. Review of the care plan: No Nutritional Triggers at present dated 03/05/24 revealed interventions included to honor preferences, provide diet as ordered, record intakes every meal and weight per policy. The physician was to be notified of a significant weight change. The care plan had not been revised to reflect the resident's weight loss. Review of the Weight Change Note dated 07/30/24 revealed Dietitian #532 notified Resident #46's physician of a 13 pound (#) (12.1%) weight loss in a month; 18.2# (16.2%) weight loss in three months and a 16.6# (15%) weight loss in five months. Current weight was 94# with a BMI of 18.4…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-16 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, test tray, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was pureed to the correct consistency. This affected four residents (#14, #17, #22 and #23) who receive a pureed diet. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Observation of the pureed process took place on 08/07/24 at 4:31 P.M. with Dietary #570. Dietary #570 pureed barbeque chicken, rice pilaf and mixed vegetables following the recipe and under sanitary conditions. After pureeing each food type she placed them in plastic containers, covered each with foil and placed them on the steam table to serve for the supper meal. Dietary #570 did not taste the chicken, rice or vegetables for texture after they were pureed. On 08/07/24 at 4:45 P.M. the surveyor completed a test tray. The chicken was tasted for consistency. It was fibrous and not pureed to a creamy consistency. The rice was smooth and the correct consistency. When the vegetables were tasted, there was visible bits of green and orange vegetables. It was visible the vegetables were not fully blended. To taste, the vegetables were in pieces,…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accommodations of resident needs was met when call lights were not readily accessible to residents. This affected one resident (#26) of two residents reviewed for communication-sensory. The facility identified two residents being blind (#3, #26). In addition, based on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide residents with appropriate table heights on the secured unit during meals. This affected one resident(#21) of 14 residents on the secured unit. The census was 51. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #26 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, unspecified macular degeneration and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the care plan: Highly Impaired Visual Function related to Macular Degeneration revised 04/22/24 revealed interventions including to arrange room and things in order to promote…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident information remained private. This affected one resident (#6) during a random observation. The census was 51. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus and depression. On 08/05/24 at 12:15 P.M., observation of the main nurses station revealed two medication carts behind the desk. One of the two medication carts computer screen was open revealing the electronic medical record for Resident #6. The screen included a picture of the resident, the resident's date of birth , physician name and medications. There was no staff observed at the nurses station. On 08/05/24 at 12:18 P.M., interview with Registered Nurse #528 verified the electronic medical record was visible and open exposing personal resident health information. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00155816.
Show the remaining 20 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-16 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from restraints. This affected two residents (#21 and #46) of three residents reviewed for restraints. The facility did not identify any residents having restraints. The census was 51. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease, pneumonia, thyroid disorder, arthritis, hip fracture, psychotic disorder, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #21 was severely impaired for daily decision-making, and did not use restraints, chair alarms or a chair to prevent rising. Review of the Full Year Therapy Screen dated 2024 revealed on 02/27/24, 05/16/24 and 08/08/24 Resident #21 was dependent for wheelchair mobility and walking was not attempted due to medical condition/safety. Review of the electronic…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessments were accurate related to alarms, falls and psychotropic medications. This affected one resident (#46) of 18 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The census was 51. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] from the community with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, major depressive disorder and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of the electronic Physician Orders dated July 2024 revealed resident was ordered a self-releasing seat belt and a pressure sensitive alarm at all times except while in wheelchair. The resident also received a PRN (as needed) Haldol (antipsychotic) 1 milligram on 07/04/24 for anxiety. a. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was severely impaired for daily decision-making and sustained one fall with no injury . Review of the Fall…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a written summary of the baseline care plan. This affected one resident (#106) of 18 residents reviewed for care planning. Findings include: During an interview on 08/05/24 at 9:51 A.M., Resident #106 stated she did not recall receiving a summary of her baseline care plan. Review of Resident #106's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/20/24. Diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy, hypokalemia, pain, age-related physical debility, hypothyroidism, cervical disc degeneration, right artificial knee joint, bilateral hearing loss, angina pectoris, depression, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, thyroid disorder, squamous cell carcinoma of skin, and anxiety disorder. Review of the baseline care plan dated 07/20/24 revealed there was an area at the bottom of the second page for a resident or representative to sign indicating they received a copy of the resident's medication list and a copy of the baseline care plan. Instead of a signature there was a note written…
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 · D2024-08-16 · 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 medical record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans to maintain a resident's highest practicable well-being. This affected one resident (#46) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The census was 51. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's type dementia, anxiety, breast cancer and arthritis. a. Review of the admission Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was at moderate risk for falls. Further review revealed no evidence a care plan was developed between 03/04/24 and 06/05/24 to prevent falls. Review of the Nursing Notes dated 06/05/24 revealed Resident #46 had sustained a fall. This was the first documented fall for the resident. b. Review of the admitting History and Physical dated 02/06/24 and the electronic Diagnosis List revealed Resident #46 had health conditions/diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, breast cancer, arthritis, constipation 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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0675 — failed to support quality of life — isolatedHonor each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs.
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, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper positioning of residents during meals on the secured unit. This affected three residents ( #21, #25 and #46) of 14 residents on the secured unit. The census was 51. Findings include Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's type dementia. Medical record review revealed Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease and history of pneumonia. Medical record review revealed Resident #25 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-traumatic brain dysfunction and non-Alzheimer's type dementia. Observations of meal service on the secured unit revealed the following: a. On 08/05/24 at 12:01 P.M., observation revealed State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #105 and #108 distributed the lunch meals to residents on the secured unit. After distribution, STNA #108 sat at one of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received nail and oral care. This affected two residents (#22 and #49) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed a 03/09/24 admission with diagnoses including encounter for fitting and adjustment of urinary device, pressure ulcer of right lower back, encounter for palliative care, retention of urine, cerebral infarction, dementia, osteomyelitis of vertebra, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety. Review of a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for initiation of hospice care included the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making, dependent for personal hygiene, dependent on rolling in bed, had bilateral lower leg functional impairment, and had a Stage IV pressure ulcer (Full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement physician orders for tubigrips (tubular bandages that provide light to moderate compression) to address edema. This affected one resident (#27) of 24 residents screened for edema (swelling). Findings include: Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed diagnoses including edema, hypertension, and type two diabetes mellitus. Resident #27 had a physician order dated 04/12/24 to apply tubigrips to both legs to be worn at all times except during hygiene as tolerated. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #27 was cognitively intact. Documentation on the electronic task bar indicated Resident #27 had tubigrips worn on 08/05/24 at 5:59 A.M. and refused on 08/05/24 at 9:47 A.M. Observation of Resident #27 on 08/05/24 at 3:35 P.M. revealed both of Resident #27's feet were swollen. Resident #27 stated she used to wear compression stockings but did not know where they were. Resident #27 had…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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, medical record review, missing item log review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure visual appliances i.e. eyeglasses were readily available for resident use. This affected one resident (#21) of two resident reviewed for communication-sensory. The census was 51. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cataracts, glaucoma or macular degeneration, non-traumatic brain dysfunction and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the care plan: Communication Problem dated 10/26/20 revealed Resident #21 vision was adequate as she will name things across the room, has glasses that she chooses not to wear at all times but staff was to encourage her to wear her glasses. Review of the Eye Care evaluation dated 01/17/24 revealed resident with severe cataracts, hyperopia and presbyopia (refractive errors that cause blurry close-up vision) in both eyes. Resident declined new prescription glasses and spectacle prescription for…
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 · D2024-08-16 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure relieving measures were in place as ordered. This affected one resident (#34) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of Resident #34's medical record revealed a 06/27/24 admission with diagnoses including pressure induced deep tissue damage of sacral region, systemic lupus erythematosus, age related osteoporosis with current pathological fracture, urinary incontinence, fracture of neck of right femur, joint replacement surgery, anemia, type 2 diabetes with polyneuropathy,, hyperglycemia,, vitamin D deficiency, depression, paroxysmal vertigo of right ear, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, panlobular emphysema, gastroesophageal reflux disease, duodenal ulcer, constipation, lack of coordination, repeated falls, cognitive communication deficit, fracture of one right rib, need for assistance with personal care, artificial left hip joint and cerebral infarction. The resident had a fall on 07/10/24 with fracture of right hip. 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 · D2024-08-16 · 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 observation, record review, policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure restorative services were initiated, assessed, reviewed and revised if needed. This affected three residents (#12, #21, and #46) of four residents reviewed for positioning, mobility and limited range of motion. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed a 10/16/19 admission with diagnoses including Parkinson disease, end stage renal disease, Tourette's disorder, schizoaffective disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, and moderate intellectual disability. The resident had a plan of care initiated 04/28/22 for impaired self performance of bed mobility, Related to rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson;s disease, age related osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Interventions included 01/20/23 assistance with placement of soft palm guard to both hands at ALL times EXCEPT for meals &…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-16 · 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 observation, medical record review, fall investigation review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions and complete accurate investigations to prevent further falls. This affected one resident (#46) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The census was 51. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's type dementia, anxiety and arthritis. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was severely impaired for daily decision-making and had one fall without injury since the last assessment. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was severely impaired for daily decision-making, required extensive assistance with transfers, bed mobility of two persons, had two or more falls with no injury, had received therapy services and did not use any alarms or restraints. Review of the admission Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE]…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care was provided as ordered for a resident with a history of urinary tract infections and urinary catheter. This affected one resident (#6) of one resident reviewed for urinary catheter. Findings include: Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including flaccid neuropathic bladder, neurogenic bladder, retention of urine, history of urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, atherosclerosis of native arteries of right leg with ulceration of heel and midfoot, peripheral vascular disease and type 2 diabetes. The resident had a positive urinary tract infection from Escherichia Coli >100,000 on 05/18/23 and was treated with Keflex. A positive urinary tract infection from Escherichia Coli on 12/12/23 was treated with Levoquin. The resident returned from the hospital on [DATE] with an indwelling urinary catheter due to retention and urinary tract infection.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-16 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a significant weight loss received medications, supplements and routine meals. This affected one resident (#46) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The census was 51. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, major depressive disorder, breast cancer and diabetes mellitus type 2. The resident's admission weight was 110.6 pounds (#). Review of the Nutritional Sheet Version 1.5 revealed: -dated 03/04/24 revealed resident weight 110.6# with a BMI of 21.6 indicating a healthy weight. Tolerating diet with intakes averaging 86% with no chewing or swallowing difficulties. Dietitian to follow and address nutrition concerns as appropriate. -dated 06/13/24 revealed resident weight 112.2# with a BMI of 21.9 indicating a healthy weight. , no significant weight loss. Tolerating diet with intakes averaging 65% with no…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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 medical record review, medication guide review,policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide monitoring for side effects with the use of a psychoactive medication. This affected one resident (#46) of three residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings Include: Medical record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] from the community with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, major depressive disorder and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was severely impaired for daily decision-making with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus. Review of the electronic Physician Orders dated 07/10/24 revealed to start Rexulti (antipsychotic) 0.5 milligrams one tablet daily. Review of the July and August 2024 Medication Administration Record revealed Resident #46 had received Rexulti daily since 07/11/24. Review of the medical record revealed no baseline AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) assessment…
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 · D2024-08-16 · 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 interview, the facility failed to ensure an as needed antianxiety medication had a 14 day stop date, and an antipsychotic medication had behaviors documented and an indication for use. This affected two residents (#22 and #46) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed a 03/09/24 admission with diagnoses including encounter for fitting and adjustment of urinary device, pressure ulcer of right lower back, encounter for palliative care, retention of urine, cerebral infarction, dementia, osteomyelitis of vertebra, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety. Review of a Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] for initiation of hospice care included the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making, dependent for personal hygiene, dependent on rolling in bed, had bilateral lower leg functional impairment, and had a Stage IV pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin 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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 an accurate medical record. This affected two residents (#22 and #46) of 19 residents reviewed. The facility census was 51. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed a 03/09/24 admission with diagnoses including encounter for fitting and adjustment of urinary device, pressure ulcer of right lower back, encounter for palliative care, retention of urine, cerebral infarction, dementia, osteomyelitis of vertebra, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety. Review of a Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] for initiation of hospice care included the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making, dependent for personal hygiene, dependent on rolling in bed, had bilateral lower leg functional impairment, and had a Stage IV pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone in the ulcer. Slough and/or eschar may be visible.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of infection control logs, observation, policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure catheter care met professional standards and patterns of infection were identified. This affected one resident (#6) of three residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. Findings include: 1. Review of the June 2024 infection control log indicated four urinary tract infections (UTIs) were recorded with all acquired after admission. Three of the four UTIs had ecoli (microorganism) recorded as the results on the culture. All three of the residents with ecoli in their urine resided on the same unit (B hall) with the onset dates recorded as 06/30/24. On 08/06/24 at 2:19 P.M., during interview, Registered Nurse (RN) #522 (Infection Control Preventionist) stated she had not identified any patterns while completing the infection surveillance. After discussing the three residents who resided on the same unit having an onset on 06/30/24 and all having ecoli identified on the culture results, RN #522 stated she recognized there had been a pattern. 2. Observation of catheter care on…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure antibiotic orders were reviewed with the resident's attending physician when there was inadequate information to support the presence of an infection and an antibiotic was not in daily use without consultation with a specialist. This affected two residents (#9 and #15) of 24 residents screened for infections. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed diagnoses including calculus of the kidney and kidney cyst. A nursing note dated 04/30/24 at 12:40 P.M. indicated Resident #9 complained of pain in the testes area and pain while urinating. An order was received to send Resident #9 to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation. The physician was notified Resident #9 had bright red intermittent blood coming from his penis. A progress note dated 04/30/24 at 2:04 P.M. indicated Resident #9 was being transported to the ER. A nursing note dated 05/01/24 at 1:30 A.M. revealed Resident #9 returned from the ER with orders for…
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 before2022-08-18 · 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
Based on resident interview, medical record review, fall investigation review and staff interview the facility failed to implement fall interventions as ordered. This affected one (Resident #37) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The census was 40. Findings included: On 08/15/22 at 11:17 A.M., interview with Resident #37 revealed a fall last month during care with a staff member, and she slid off her bed and was lowered to the ground by the staff member. Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/27/21 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease and difficulty walking. Review of Resident #37's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment with a reference date of 04/22/22 indicated Resident #37 had an independent cognition level and required two staff members for assistance with transfers. Review of Resident #37's nurse's notes revealed on 07/09/22 Resident #37 slid off the bed when sitting on the edge of the bed being assisted by staff with morning care. Review of the fall investigation completed following the fall on 07/09/22 revealed 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 · Dcited before2022-08-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained as ordered for Resident #16. This affected one (Resident #16) of two residents reviewed for weights. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 06/28/22 with diagnoses including dementia, depression and diabetes mellitus. Review of the physician's order dated 06/28/22 for Resident #16 revealed an order for monthly weights. Review of the admission weight for Resident #16 revealed she weighed 107.1 pounds on 06/29/22. Review of the plan of care for Resident #16 dated 07/12/22 revealed she was underweight with a low body mass index. The staff were to weigh the resident per their policy and notify the physician of significant weight changes. Review of the nutritional assessment dated [DATE] revealed the most recent weight the facility had obtained was on 06/29/22 and was 107.1 pounds. Interview on 08/16/22 at 1:21 P.M. with Dietitian #500 verified…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LANCIA, GUIRINO | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 06/01/1993 |
| LANCIA, GIUSEPPE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/1993 |
| LANCIA, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/17/1999 |
| WESBANCO BANK, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/13/2005 |
| CIVEN, MAUREEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/04/2005 |
| MARCHANI, JAMIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/23/2021 |
| MCCARTHY, KARRIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/11/1997 |
| MCVAY, BETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/08/2025 |
| NOLAN, JANET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/04/1980 |
| PARSONS, BECKY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/14/2017 |
| TEEMAN, DOUGLAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/18/2023 |
| WAGNER, CARRIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/19/2000 |
| ZAKOVICH, PARIS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/11/2004 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| D'ANNIBALLE AND COMPANY, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2000 |
| G & G AGENCY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| L & L REALTY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/25/1995 |
| RENEWAL REHAB LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DELA CRUZ, RENATO | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| GREEN, MEGAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| KEENAN, KARIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/22/1987 |
| KELLER, LISA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/22/1991 |
| KERNYA, DAWNELLE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/21/2025 |
| NEWLIN, BARBARA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/18/1985 |
| RIGGLE, SUSAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/29/2017 |
| WHITLATCH, AMBER | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/10/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 45 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $22K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 366190. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-03, 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.