Hudson Springs Nursing And Rehab
5000 Sowul Boulevard, Stow, OH 44224 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 80 certified beds · (330) 653-8722 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0606), cited Aug 2024
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (37) — 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
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 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 2 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 | 3.0% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 24.6% | 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 | 5.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.7% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.7% | 25.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.3% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.7% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 34.9% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.6% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.7% | 12.9% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
58.6% 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 50 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 30 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 58.6%CMS range 47.4–73.6 | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 6.2–15.4 | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 36.7% | 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 | 98.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 4.8% | 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 | 3.2% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 4.8–15.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 80 beds and averages 71.7 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.13 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.13 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.31 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.22 to 0.90 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
37 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 26 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-21 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive pressure ulcer program for Resident #40 to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer and to ensure timely and necessary treatment was implemented. Actual harm occurred on 07/29/24 when Resident #40, who was cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for activities of daily living was identified to have an in-house acquired unstageable pressure ulcer (occurs due to prolonged pressure on a specific area of the skin resulting in the lack of blood and the wound cannot be properly staged until the layers of dead skin are removed) to his right leg. Following the development, the unstageable pressure ulcer deteriorated, resulting in debridement (procedure to remove dead, damaged, or infected tissue from a wound to improve healing) and the pressure ulcer was subsequently reclassified as a Stage IV (full thickness skin and tissue loss) pressure ulcer. Prior to 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 · D2026-05-29 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THIS IS AN INCIDENCE OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3 was appropriately dressed for an outside appointment. This finding affected one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 66.Findings include: Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia and fibromyalgia.Review of Resident #3's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was unable to complete the interview.Review of Resident #3's progress note dated 04/30/26 at 11:03 A.M. revealed the resident was out on an appointment at this time and no distress at the time of the appointment.Review of Resident #3's Employee/Resident/Witness Statement dated 04/30/26 authored by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #806 revealed the 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 · Fdisputed · IDR2026-04-29 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to serve food at hot and palatable temperatures, with accurate portion sizes to meet nutritional needs, and in timely meals. This affected nine residents (Residents #7, #17, #18, #29, #38, #57, #62, #72 and #75) and had the potential to affect 67 residents who received food from the kitchen. There were six residents (Residents #8, #13, #14, #31, #64 and #84) who received no food or beverages from the kitchen. The facility census was 73.Findings include: Interview with Resident #29 on 04/19/26 at 11:10 A.M. revealed, Meals have very small portions of meat. They serve a lot of noodles, and they combine leftovers into a new meal.Interview with Resident #72 on 04/19/26 at 11:35 A.M. revealed, Food (expletive). It's cold sometimes and the presentation on the plate makes it unappealing.Interview with Resident #17 on 04/19/26 at 11:46 A.M. revealed, The food taste is poor.Interview with Resident #57 on 04/19/26 at 12:04 P.M. revealed, The food is terrible. Don't know what you are eating sometimes. I get a lot of mashed potatoes.…
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 beforedisputed · IDR2026-04-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its kitchen area was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect 67 residents who received food from the kitchen. There were six residents (Residents #8, #13, #14, #31, #64 and #84) who received no food or beverages from the kitchen. The facility census was 73.Findings include: Observation during the initial kitchen tour conducted on 04/19/26 at 1:54 P.M., the following was noted:The shelf over the stove had accumulated grease and dust.The inside of the microwave had accumulated build-up of food from spatters.The under-counter refrigerator had spills dried onto the floor.The bucket of sanitizing solution used to wipe the counters did not meet the correct level of sanitizer.Interview at the time of the observation with Dietary Manager #304 verified the findings.Observation on 04/21/26 at 12:15 P.M. of the three-compartment sink used to wash and sanitize equipment and utensils did not meet the correct level of sanitizer. Interview at the time of the observation with [NAME] #278 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 · Fdisputed · IDR2026-04-29 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain its dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 73 residents residing in the facility.Findings include: Observation of the facilities dumpster area on 04/19/26 at 1:54 P.M. revealed the two garbage dumpsters had their top lids open. One dumpster also had the side door open. There was a pile of gloves, straws, plastic bottles and wrappers beside one dumpster. Interview at the time of the observation with Dietary Manager #304 verified the condition of the dumpster area.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 1397116 (OH00165273).
- Potential for harm · Ddisputed · IDR2026-04-29 · 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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the advanced directives were consistently documented in the medical record. This failure resulted in conflicting code status information for one resident (Resident #57) of 28 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 73.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an admission date of 08/08/25. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, diabetes, aphasia, major depressive disorders, and chronic obstructive respiratory disease (COPD).Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition.Review of physician orders for Resident #57 revealed an order for Do Not Resuscitate-Comfort Care (DNR-CC) dated 08/12/25. There were no changes in the advanced directive orders made after 08/12/25.Review of the hard copy Advanced Directive form revealed Do Not Resuscitate-Comfort Care- Arrest (DNR-CC-Arrest) was signed by the physician 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 before2026-04-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices by performing hand hygiene and changing gloves during incontinence care. This affected one resident (Resident #51) out of one resident observed for incontinence care. The facility identified 45 residents (Residents #2, #5, #8, #10, #12, #14, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #29, #30, #32, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #45, #47, #48, #50, #51, #52, #56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #65, #70, #71, #73, #74, and #75) who required incontinence care. The facility census was 73.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 12/18/25 and diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic kidney disease stage three, acute…
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 · D2026-01-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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, record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure timely notification to the physician of a change in condition for Resident #78. This affected one resident (#78) of three residents reviewed for change of condition. The facility census was 75. Findings include : Review of the medical record revealed Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to hemiplegia, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, vomiting, pneumonia, metabolic encephalopathy, dysphagia, chronic pulmonary disease, severe protein malnutrition, tracheostomy, and disorder of brain, unspecified.Review of physician orders for Resident #78 dated 07/22/25 revealed residuals (the amount of stomach contents left in the stomach at a specific time during tube feeding measured to see if the stomach is emptying properly and tolerating the tube feeding) were to be checked and to call the physician if equal to or greater than 150 milliliters (ml) every shift…
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 before2026-01-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive and individualized care plan for Resident 78 to address turning and repositioning needs and interventions for pain. This affected one resident ( Resident #78) of four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 75.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, vomiting, pneumonia, metabolic encephalopathy, muscle weakness, symbolic dysfunction, history of transient ischemic attack, shortness of breath, acute respiratory failure, dysphagia, chronic pulmonary disease, disease of digestive system, hemiplegia, severe protein malnutrition, malaise, tracheostomy, disorder of brain, and hypothyroid.Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #78 was nonverbal and had impaired cognition. Resident #78 was dependent on staff to roll left…
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 · D2025-10-23 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient linens were available for resident care and ensure residents have a clean and sanitary homelike environment. This affected one (Resident #25) of the residents reviewed for hygiene and linens. The facility census was 69.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date 05/18/24. Diagnoses included morbid obesity, major depression, anxiety, and lymphedema. Interview with Resident #25 on 10/20/25 at 9:55 A.M. revealed she has been waiting to be cleaned up after having a bowel movement earlier in the morning. Resident #25 stated she put her call light on around 8 A.M. and when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #819 came in, she told Resident #25 she would be right back in a few. She turned off the call light. At 10:11 A.M. CNA #819 came into Resident #25's room and again Resident #25 told her she needed changed. CNA #819 stated she came on at 7:00 A.M. and had not checked and changed Resident #25, yet. CNA #819 stated she did not have…
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 before2025-10-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of video camera footage, interviews with staff and a police detective, and record review, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive, person-centered care plan for Resident #2. This affected one (#2) of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date 01/24/25. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, wedge compression fracture of third lumbar vertebra, chronic respiratory failure, severe osteoporosis, dementia, tracheostomy, and above the knee amputee. Review of the care plan revealed Resident #2 had a self-care performance deficit related to disease process Parkinson's disease, impaired balance, limited mobility and impaired range of motion due to bilateral hand/wrist contractures. Interventions included Resident #2 required two staff assistance for repositioning, dressing, personal hygiene/oral care and toileting. A video provided on 10/22/25 at 12:34 P.M. by Detective #850 revealed on 09/15/25 at 11:30 A.M., two staff members came into 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.
Show the remaining 26 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-23 · 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 observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide timely assistance to residents who were dependent on staff for activities daily living with incontinence care. This affected one (Resident #25) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date 05/18/24. Diagnoses included morbid obesity, major depression, anxiety, chronic pain, lymphedema, urinary retention, and chronic kidney disease stage III. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was cognitively intact and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, was always incontinent of bowel, and had a indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #25's care plan revealed she had deficit in self-care performance related to morbid obesity and pulmonary disease. Interventions included Resident #25 was totally dependent on two staff for toilet use 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 · D2025-02-20 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure respiratory treatments were administered and performed as ordered. This affected one (Resident #38) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 74. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 11/29/24 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, Rett's Syndrome (rare neurological genetic disorder that causes severe muscle movement disability), cerebral palsy (condition that affects movement and posture, epilepsy, tracheostomy status, ileostomy status and gastrostomy status. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #38 revealed he had an order dated 01/17/25 for a chest vest (used to help break the cycle of excess mucus, lung infections and lung damage) to be applied twice daily, every 12 hours, at 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. He also had an order for Albuterol Sulfate Inhalation Nebulization Solution 0.083% (medication that relaxes airway muscles and increases air flow to the lungs), 3 milliliters via trach every 12…
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 before2024-12-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review, diet order list review, and interview, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen except Residents #19, #28 and #73 who were ordered nothing by mouth. The census was 75. Findings include: Observation on 12/10/24 at 12:45 P.M. during tour of the kitchen with Dietary Manager (DM) #1 revealed there was an opened 32-ounce cardboard jug of liquid eggs without an opened date, a two-quart plastic container of what appeared to be sausage links without a label or date and a two-quart plastic container of what appeared to be hash browns without a label or date in the walk-in refrigerator. There was an opened plastic bag of shredded cheese without an opened date, three opened and varying sizes bags of parmesan cheese without an opened date, an opened bag of hot dogs without an opened date, a plastic gallon bag of what appeared to be sliced deli meat without a label or date, an opened bag of tortillas without an open date, a sandwich plastic bag of what appeared to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff performed hand hygiene prior to handling food and beverage items. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified two residents (#53 and #63) as receiving nothing from the kitchen. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Observation on 08/13/24 from 4:25 P.M. to 5:43 P.M. of the dinner tray line revealed at 5:11 P.M., Dietary Aide (DA) #439 took the 200-hall cart out of the kitchen. DA #439 did not perform hand hygiene upon return to the kitchen at 5:13 P.M. DA #439 proceeded to restock a snack cart. Continued observation revealed at 5:27 P.M., [NAME] #447 took the 300-hall cart out of the kitchen. [NAME] #447 returned to the kitchen at 5:29 P.M., did not wash her hands, and proceeded to place plated food and beverages onto trays and then placed the trays into a food cart. Interview on 08/13/24 at 5:39 P.M. with Dietary Manager #444 confirmed DA #439 and [NAME] #447 should have washed their hands upon entry…
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 · E2024-08-21 · tag F0568 — patternProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, observation, review of resident fund account records, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents who had a financial account with the facility received quarterly statements as required. This affected five residents (#7, #31, #40, #48, and #57) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Interview on 08/12/24 at 11:14 A.M. with Resident #48 revealed she had a resident funds account at the facility. Resident #48 stated she had not received quarterly statements from the facility to show her account activity. Review of resident fund account records for five residents (#7, #31, #40, #48, and #57) revealed no evidence quarterly statements had been given over the past year to the resident and/or resident representative. Interview on 08/14/24 at 2:16 P.M. with Administrative Assistant (AA) #409 confirmed there was no evidence quarterly statements for Residents #7, #31, #40, #48, and #57 had been given to the resident and/or resident representative. AA #409 stated 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 · E2024-08-21 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 review of the Internet Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (iQIES) Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Validation Report and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure MDS assessments were submitted in a timely manner. This affected 11 residents (#7, #9, #13, #15, #21 #23, #24, #33, #39, #41, and #48) of 23 residents reviewed for MDS submission. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the iQIES MDS Final Validation Report submitted on 08/09/24 at 2:22 P.M. revealed each of the following resident's MDS assessments were submitted more that 14 days late: • Resident #7's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #9's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #13's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #15's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #21's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #23's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #24's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] • Resident #33's quarterly MDS 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 · E2024-08-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, review of staff schedules and punch detail, review of Resident Council meeting minutes and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to have sufficient staff to meet the acuity needs of each resident. This affected two (#57 and #29) of two residents reviewed for staffing with the potential to affect all 41 residents residing on the 100 and 200 halls. The facility census was 65. Findings include 1. Interview on 08/14/24 at 9:20 A.M. with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) #405 and State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #424 revealed there was one aide for 19 residents on the 100 hall and one aide for 22 residents on the 200 hall. RNS #495 and STNA #424 stated a third, unidentified, aide was assigned to the 100/200 halls but had been sent out with a resident for an appointment. STNA #424 stated showers were not being completed as scheduled but did not provide any specific resident who had not received care. RNS #405 stated she had to deal with staffing for an hour before she could start her medication pass this…
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 · E2024-08-21 · 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, staff interviews, review of the facility menu, review of the dietary spreadsheet and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the spreadsheet was followed for residents on a mechanically altered diet. This affected eight (#5, #7, #13, #29, #32, #46, #59 and #76) of eight residents identified by the facility as being on a mechanically altered diet. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the menu for dinner service on 08/13/24 revealed the meal consisted of baked fish, tartar sauce, boiled red potatoes with parsley, creamed spinach and strawberry trifle. Review of dietary spreadsheet for dinner service on 08/13/24 revealed mechanical soft diets were to receive two ounces of baked fish with one ounce of broth or sauce, one tablespoon of mayonnaise (instead of tartar sauce), boiled white potatoes (in place of boiled red potatoes with parsley), creamed spinach and strawberry trifle. Observations on 08/13/24 between 4:25 P.M. and 5:43 P.M. revealed all residents received the same food items of fish with no broth, red potatoes with…
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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were not left in their rooms without visual or audio stimulation. This affected one resident (#62) of three residents reviewed for preferences. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of Resident #62's medical records revealed an admission date of 05/08/24. Diagnoses included stroke, muscle weakness and mobility abnormalities. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 had intact cognition and required partial assistance with personal hygiene and grooming. Observation on 08/12/24 at 10:18 A.M. revealed Resident #62 was in bed facing a blank wall. A television was observed on the opposite side of Resident #62's room that was not on. Interview with Resident #62 at time of observation revealed he was unable to turn to his left side to look at the television and stated he would at least like the television on to listen to. Concurrent interview with State Tested…
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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of beneficiary notices and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate beneficiary notices were provided at the end of Medicare services and failed to ensure beneficiary notices were provided timely. This affected three residents (#1, #47, and #169) of three residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the beneficiary notice list revealed Resident #1 discharged from Medicare services on 06/09/24 and remained in the facility. Review of the notices provided to Resident #1 revealed a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was provided on 06/06/24. There was no evidence Resident #1 was provided the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN). 2. Review of the beneficiary notice list revealed Resident #47 discharged from Medicare services on 07/05/24 and remained in the facility. Review of the notices provided to Resident #47 revealed a NOMNC was provided on 07/02/24. The was no evidence Resident #47 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — isolatedNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and review of personnel files, the facility failed to ensure Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) checks were completed on employees upon hire. This had the potential to affect all resident residing in the facility. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of Dietary Manager (DM) #444's personnel file revealed a hire date of 02/01/24. Further review revealed no evidence a NAR check was completed. 2. Review of State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #476's personnel file revealed a hire date of 07/30/24. Further review revealed no evidence a NAR check was completed. 3. Review of STNA # 478's personnel file revealed a hire date of 08/05/24. Further review revealed no evidence a NAR check was completed. Interview on 08/21/24 at 9:42 A.M. with Human Resources (HR) #403 revealed he had recently assumed the HR role. HR #403 stated he was unaware he was to check all employees against the NAR. HR #403 confirmed the facility had no evidence DM #444, STNA # 476 and STNA #478 had been checked on the NAR prior to employment.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately completed. This affected three residents (#24, #52, and #66) of 23 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #66 revealed an admission date of 06/04/24 and a discharge date of 06/25/24. Diagnoses included Nontraumatic subacute subdural hemorrhage, dementia, hypertension, pelvic and spinal fracture, muscle weakness and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of the discharge return not anticipated MDS assessment, dated 06/25/24, revealed Resident #66 had intact cognition and had a planned discharge to a short term general hospital. Review of the discharge summary completed on 06/25/24 at 12:59 P.M. revealed Resident #66 discharged on to assisted living (AL), accompanied by his son. Interview on 08/14/24 at 8:29 A.M. with MDS Nurse #423 verified the discharge MDS 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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care plans were updated timely and care conferences were held. This affected two residents (#44 and #7) of two residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 05/18/24. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), morbid (severe) obesity, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/02/24 revealed Resident #44 had intact cognition, had delusions, rejected care four to six days of the look back period and received antidepressants during the seven day look back period. Review of the physician orders for August 2024 revealed orders for Alprazolam (anti-anxiety) oral tablet 0.5 milligrams (mg), Trazodone HCl (antidepressant) oral tablet 50 mg and Duloxetine HCl (antidepressant) oral capsule delayed…
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 before2024-08-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, family interview, guardian interview, review of shower documentation and review of the facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure showers were provided as scheduled for dependent residents. This affected two residents (#4 and #53) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 03/08/24. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, Alzheimer's disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for showers and baths. Review of the care plan dated 08/08/24 revealed Resident #4 was at risk for self-care deficit for bathing, dressing, and feeding. Interventions included provide assistance with ADLs as needed. Review of shower sheet documentation revealed in June 2024,…
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 · D2024-08-21 · 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
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Intravenous (IV) dressings were changed per physician order and as needed. This affected one resident (#74) of one resident reviewed for IV dressings. The facility identified one resident with IV access. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of Resident #74's medical records revealed an admission date of 07/24/24. Diagnoses included osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the right ankle and foot and Methicillin Susceptible Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). Review of care plan dated 07/25/24 revealed Resident #74 was on IV medications related to osteomyelitis. Interventions included change IV dressing as ordered and indicated. Review of Resident #74's physician orders dated 08/06/24 revealed change IV dressing every seven days. Interview on 08/19/24 at 9:49 A.M. with Resident #74 revealed her IV dressing was to be changed every week and stated it was supposed to have been changed on 08/15/24. Resident #74 stated she has had IV lines in…
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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, dialysis center staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center. This affected one (#24) of one resident identified by the facility as receiving dialysis. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 03/29/23. Diagnoses included end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and dependence on dialysis, cognitive communication deficit and hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease without heart failure, with stage five chronic kidney disease, or end stage renal disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/03/24, revealed Resident #24 was moderately cognitively impaired and exhibited disorganized behavior. Resident #24 was dependent on staff for toileting, showering and dressing and required substantial/maximal assistance from staff for mobility, including wheeling her manual…
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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents with a history of trauma were appropriately assessed to identify triggers to potentially minimize re-traumatization. This affected one resident (#48) of one resident reviewed for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included postconcussional syndrome, bipolar disorder, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, acute kidney failure, type two diabetes and anxiety disorder. Review of modification of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #48 was cognitively intact and had not exhibited any signs or symptoms of delirium, psychosis, or rejection of care. Resident #48 was either was independent or required setup/clean up assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of a Trauma…
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 · D2024-08-21 · 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
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to the administration of as needed (PRN) anti-anxiety medication. The facility further failed to document the effectiveness of PRN medication use or the rationale for extended use past 14 days for the PRN anti-anxiety medication. This affected one resident (#44) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 05/18/24. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), morbid (severe) obesity, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/02/24, revealed Resident #44 had intact cognition, had delusions, rejected care four to six days of the look back period and received antidepressants during the seven day look back period. Review of the physician orders revealed 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 before2024-08-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, Power of Attorney (POA) interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. This affected two residents (#17 and #28) of five residents reviewed for medication errors. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/13/24. Diagnoses included seizures and muscle weakness. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/20/24, revealed Resident #28 had intact cognition. Review of Resident #28's care plan, dated 06/21/24, revealed the resident was at risk for seizures. Interventions included administer medications as ordered. Review of the physician orders revealed Resident #28 was ordered Depakote (anti-seizure medication) 250 milligrams (mg) once a day and Depakote 500 mg once a day for a total of 750 mg in the morning, once a day. Review of progress note, dated 08/13/24 timed 10:45 A.M. and authored by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed the nurse reported that Resident #28 received 1250 mg of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, observation, review of the dietary meal ticket, staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure resident food preferences were honored. This affected one resident (#74) of two residents reviewed for food preferences. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #74 revealed an admission date of 07/24/24. Diagnoses included acute osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the right ankle and foot, methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, non-pressure chronic ulcer of right lower leg with fat layer exposed, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and heart failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/30/24, revealed Resident #74 had intact cognition and was independent with eating. Interview on 08/12/24 at 2:20 P.M. with Resident #74 revealed during her first week of admission, she spoke with the dietitian, the former Director of Nursing (DON) and Dietary Manager (DM) #444 regarding her diabetic diet and food preferences. Resident #74 stated she asked 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 before2024-08-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, family interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was donned prior to providing care to a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and further failed to ensure contact precautions were implemented timely for a resident identified with a transmissable infection. This affected two resident (#4 and #74) of two residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #74's medical records revealed an admission date of 07/24/24. Diagnoses included osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the right ankle and foot and Methicllin Susceptible Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). Review of the care plan dated 07/25/24 revealed Resident #74 required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) related to risk for infections related to indwelling medical device and a wound. Interventions included to don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)…
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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations were offered to all residents. This affected one resident (#4) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 03/08/24. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, Alzheimer's disease and benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/29/24, revealed Resident #4 had impaired cognition, had no behaviors, and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. Further review of the medical record revealed no evidence Resident #4 was offered or received influenza or pneumococcal vaccinations. Interview on 08/20/24 at 3:42 P.M. with the interim Director of Nursing (DON) verified the facility had no evidence Resident #4 was offered or received influenza or pneumococcal vaccinations. Review of the facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, revised October 2019,…
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 before2023-08-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and review of the Local Health Department (LHD) information, the facility failed to ensure proper screening and monitoring of infections were in place to prevent development and transmission of Carbapenem Resistant Acinetobacter Baumanii (CRAB). This affected one resident (#47) of how four residents reviewed for infection control and had the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the infection control log for May 2023, June 2023, and July 2023 revealed one case of Carbapenemase Producing Organisms (CPO). On 06/16/23 Resident #47 was noted to have CPO. Review of the medical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 03/16/18 with diagnoses including sacral spina bifida without hydrocephalus, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, paraplegia, insomnia, anemia, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), pressure ulcer of right buttock, stage IV (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle), colostomy, and type II diabetes…
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 · D2023-08-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered timely according to physician orders. This affected one resident (#75) out of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #75 revealed an admission date of 06/28/23 and a discharge date of 07/05/23. Diagnoses included seizures, bipolar disorder, asthma, urinary tract infection (UTI), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), acute pyelonephritis, anxiety disorder, old myocardial infarction, history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), and tobacco use. Review of Resident #75's physician orders revealed an order for Atorvastatin 40 milligram (mg) (statin to treat high cholesterol) once a day at 7:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., Diphenoxylate-Atropine tablet 2.5 - 0.025 mg (medication to treat diarrhea) give two tablets four times 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 before2023-08-16 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #75 was free from significant medication errors when the resident did not receive seizure medications. This affected one resident (#75) out of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 72. Findings included: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #75 revealed an admission date of 06/28/23 and a discharge date of 07/05/23. Diagnoses included seizures, bipolar disorder, asthma urinary tract infection (UTI), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), acute pyelonephritis, anxiety disorder, old myocardial infarction, history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), and tobacco use. Review of Resident #75's physician orders revealed an order for Carbamazepine extended release (ER) tablet 200 milligram (mg) to be given twice a day for seizures and Levetiracetam 205 mg to be given two times a day for seizures. Review of Resident #75's medication administration records (MAR) for June 2023 revealed Carbamazepine ER tablet 200 mg 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 · E2022-04-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review of the facility medication storage policy, the manufacturer's instructions for use for insulin, interviews and observations the facility failed to ensure medications were appropriately labeled and dated once opened. This affected nine residents (Residents #14, #21, #27, #47, #48, #49, #55, #256 and #257) on two of two medication carts observed in the facility. The facility census was 59. Findings included: Observation on 04/20/22 at 4:02 P.M. of the 300-hall medication storage cart revealed one Humalog (insulin ) pen for Resident #55 was opened without a date on it of when it was opened and there was no expiration date per manufacturer's guidelines on it. An Aprida (insulin) pen for Resident #256 was opened and without a date it was opened and without an expiration date per manufacturer's guidelines on it. One bottle of Dorzolamide HCL opthalmic solution and Timolol Maleate ophthalmic solution for Resident #257 were both open and without a date of when those were opened and without a use by date. At the time of the observation, LPN #520 confirmed the findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GARDEN SPRINGS HEALTHCARE — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YFR EQUITIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/27/2024 |
| BARENBAUM, BRYAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/27/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, GITTY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/27/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, MATIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 46% | since 06/27/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, PESSI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/27/2024 |
| MAHILNITSKI, ILYA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 35% | since 06/27/2024 |
| WADE, TIFFANY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/27/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 366434. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-29, 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.