Springmeade Healthcenter
4375 South County Road 25 A, Tipp City, OH 45371 · Non profit - Other · 99 certified beds · (937) 667-7500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565, F0569)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — 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)
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) | 3 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 fell from 4 to 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 | 4.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.1% | 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 | 3.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.1% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.8% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.5% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.1% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.2% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.39 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.82 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 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.
52.9% 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 221 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 35.6% 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 101 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.66 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 52.9%CMS range 47.8–58.6 | 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 | 11.3%CMS range 8.6–14.2 | 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 | 35.6% | 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 | 46.5% | 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 | 32.7% | 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 | 97.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.5%CMS range 3.7–10.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 99 beds and averages 87.8 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.80 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.53 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2025-04-03 · 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, resident interview, staff interviews, medical record review, physician wound documentation review, hospital documentation review, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) guidleine review, and policy review, the facility failed to transcribe and implement treatment orders timely for the treatment of pressure ulcers for two (#68 and #80) residents. Actual harm occurred to one resident (#68) when wound care orders were not timely implemented on admission, and the resident received no treatment or intervention from the facility for pressure areas that were present on admission. Resident #68 was admitted with a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the sacrum/coccyx area on 01/31/25 and received no treatment until 02/04/25, after the wound increased to an unstageable wound. Furthermore, the facility failed to assess and timely implement wound care for two (#11 and #12) additional residents that placed the residents at risk for the potential for more than minimal harm. This affected four (#11, #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 · F2025-04-03 · 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, resident interviews, family interview, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure meals were served to residents at a safe temperature and palatable. This affected four (#12, #45, #55 and #70) of five residents reviewed for food. This had the potential to affect all the residents . The facility identified there were not any residents who could not eat anything by mouth. The census was 87. Findings included: Interview on 03/24/25 at 11:21 A.M., with Resident #55 revealed his meals were often served cold. His daughter added this was also a concern of hers because he already has a poor appetite. Interview on 03/24/25 at 1:41 P.M., with Resident #45 revealed when he ate in his room the food was cold. Breakfast and dinners were the worst. He reported the trays on the 300 hall was delivered last and the food was cold and stated the facility wasn't using plate warmers for quite sometime now. Observation of the dining carts on 03/25/25 at 7:24 A.M., revealed the last cart of the facility was delivered to the 300 hall. At 7:44 A.M., the last tray…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was a clean environment and food was served in a safe manner. This affected all of the residents. The facility identified all the residents received meals from the kitchen. The census was 87. Findings included: Observation of the kitchen on 03/24/25 at 8:35 A.M., revealed there were five panels of lights in the ceiling in the dishwasher area, and three sets of five lights in the ceiling that ran from one side of the kitchen area to the other side that had a grey flaky substance either inside of the light panel or on the outside of the light panel. There was a vent on the far end of the dishwasher area that had a thick black substance on the outside of it. Further review revealed there were four windows in the kitchen that had a splashes of a white substance on all of them and the screens had a thick layer of grey particles on them. During the observation one of the windows were open and the wind was blowing into the kitchen. Interview on 03/24/25 at 8:50 A.M., with the Culinary Manager…
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 before2025-04-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, observations, record review, review of infection tracking, policy review, Centers for Disease (CDC) guidelines review, review of testing documentation, review of water testing results and water testing staff interviews, the facility failed to wear proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when providing resident care for residents in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), failed to ensure complete hand hygiene during a dressing change, failed to timely monitor infection tracking and monitoring was accurately and timely maintained, the facility failed to provide updated policies to address Legionella, and provide scheduled monitoring procedures of at risk water systems and provide a system approach to a positive Legionella testing. This had to affect all residents in the faciltiy. The faciltiy census was 87. Finding include: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #78 revealed admission date of 12/20/24. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including displaced fracture of left lower…
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 before2025-04-03 · 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
Based on medical record review and staff interviews, revealed the facility failed to notified Resident Representative when change in health status occurred requiring medications and laboratory testing. This affected one (#76) of two residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility census was 87. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #76 revealed admission date of 12/23/24, with diagnoses including dementia without behaviors,altered mental status, falls, hypertension, cerebral infarction without residual deficits, anxiety disorder, benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract symptoms, and insomnia, Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #76 dated 12/20/24 revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #76 requires moderate assist to dependent on staff for eating, toileting, bed mobility and transfers. Resident #76 was coded as incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the plan of care for Resident #76 revealed resident is incontinent of bladder related to benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract…
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 · D2025-04-03 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to investigate injury of unknown origin. This affected one (#238) of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 86. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #238 revealed admission date of 03/20/25. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, and bipolar disorder with psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) was in process at the time of the survey. Review of the 03/20/23 admission skin assessment revealed no areas had been documented on the skin screening. Review of the progress notes dated 03/23/25 at 11:57 P.M., revealed a second assessment was completed from admission and Resident #238 was documented to have scattered bruising to bilateral upper extremities. Family and physician were all notified and aware. Review of the 03/23/25 skin assessment documented scattered red bruising to bilateral upper extremities. In an interview on 03/24/25 at 10:54 A.M., with Resident #238…
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 · D2025-04-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the plan of care reflected the resident preferences for physician participation in urinary catheter care. This affected one (#45) of three resident reviewed for catheter care. The facility census was 87. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #45 revealed an admission on [DATE], with diagnoses including paraplegia, neurogenic bowel, acute and chronic systolic congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #45 revealed intact cognitive impairment. Resident #45 required set up or clean up assistance for eating, dependent for toileting, supervision for bed mobility and transfers required moderate assistance. Resident #45 was coded as having a urinary catheter and colostomy. Review of the plan of care for Resident #45 revealed resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-03 · 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, medical record review, family interview, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received assistance with their Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). This affected one (#24) of five residents reviewed for ADL assistance. The faciltiy census was 87. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #24 revealed admission date of 01/21/25. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including liver cell carcinoma, congestive heart failure, and depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04 indicating significantly impaired cognition. She was independent with eating and required moderate assistance for bed mobility, transfers and toileting hygiene. Review of care plan for an actual/potential for oral/dental health problems related to full upper dentures and no lower teeth or dentures with interventions which included assisting with oral cares 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 · D2025-04-03 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the activity calendar, medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was an activity program that met the needs of the residents. This affected two (#29 and #70) of three residents reviewed for activities. The census was 87. Finding included: Medical record review for Resident #70 revealed an admission date of 11/08/24. Her medical diagnoses included hypertension, dementia, and manic depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #70 revealed she was cognitively intact. Her functional status was setup or cleanup assistance for eating, partial/moderate assistance for transfers and toileting, and she was supervision/touching for bed mobility. This assessment included it was very important to do activities with groups of people. Review of the activity care plan dated 02/08/25 for Resident #70 revealed the resident was involved in independent activities as evidenced by enjoys word…
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 before2025-04-03 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to timely assess, timely obtain treatments, clarify physician orders and complete physician orders. This affected three (#55, #75 and #76) of three residents reviewed for skin impairment. The facility census was 87. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #75 revealed an admission on [DATE], with diagnoses including dislocation of right hip, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, dementia without behaviors, hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, macular degeneration, and arthropathy. Review of the Braden scale for Resident #75 dated 01/06/25 revealed resident was at low risk for skin breakdown. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed an intact cognition. Resident #75 required assistance for eating, moderate assistance for toileting, transfers and bed mobility. Resident #75 was coded as incontinent with bowel and bladder. Residents #75 were not coded with any…
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 before2025-04-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the policy, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to determine and identify potential hazards and resident-specific interventions to reduce and/or eliminate falls. Additionally, the facility failed to implement required equipment in place to prevent accidents. This affected three (#8, #76, #237) of three residents reviewed for falls or accidents. The census was 87. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #76 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia without behaviors, altered mental status, falls, hypertension, cerebral infarction without residual deficits and anxiety disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #76 dated 12/30/24 revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #76 requires moderate assistance to total dependency on staff for eating, toileting, bed mobility and transfers. Resident #76 was coded as having falls prior to admission and falls…
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 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-03 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely initiate treatments to treat urinary tract infections. This affected one (#76) of three residents reviewed for antibiotic administration. The facility census is 87. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #76 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia without behaviors, altered mental status, falls, hypertension, cerebral infarction without residual deficits, and benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract symptoms. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #76 revealed an impaired cognition. Resident #76 requires moderate assist to dependent on staff for eating, toileting, bed mobility and transfers. Resident #76 was coded as incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the plan of care for Resident #76 revealed resident is incontinent of bladder related to benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract symptoms, dementia, gait abnormality, 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 · Dcited before2025-04-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, family interview, policy review, Centers for Disease (CDC) guidance review, and hospital documentation review, the facility failed to ensure the prescribed duration of antibiotics had been provided for Clostridioides Difficile (C-Diff). This affected one (#24) of seven reviewed. The facility census was 86. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #24 revealed admission date of 01/21/25. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including liver cell carcinoma, congestive heart failure, and depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had significantly impaired cognition. She was independent with eating and required moderate assistance for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting hygiene. Review of the 01/30/25 progress note documented positive C-Diff results. The physician was contacted, and new orders were received for Vancomycin (antibiotic) four times a day for seven days. Review of the physician…
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 · D2025-04-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication was safely and appropriately stored. This affected three (#11, #68, #75) of three residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 87. Findings include 1. Medical record review for Resident #11 revealed an admission on [DATE], with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, vascular dementia with agitation, type two diabetes, iron deficiency anemia, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #11 dated 01/14/25 revealed resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #11 required assistance for eating, maximum assistance for bed mobility and was coded as dependent for toileting and transfers. Resident #11 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #11 was at risk for pressures ulcers and was not coded with any current wounds. Review of the plan of care for Resident #11 revealed resident was at risk for skin breakdown 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 · Dcited before2023-09-20 · 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
Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party of the need to change treatment to a pressure ulcer. This affected one (Resident #29) of three residents reviewed. The census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 02/11/19. Diagnoses included traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, closed fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur, need for assistance with personal care, and dementia with psychotic disturbance. Review of the admission screener for Resident #29, dated 07/31/23, revealed a pressure wound to the left heel measuring 5.5 centimeters (cm) in length, 11 cm in width and no depth. A progress note dated 09/06/23 at 1:12 P.M. revealed the previous area to the left heel was now open with serosanguinous drainage. The area was cleaned, and a new daily treatment was put into place. The Unit Manager and physician were notified. There was no documentation the resident's responsible party was notified of the change in the treatment…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented after a resident suffered a fall. This affected one (Resident #29) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility censes was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 02/11/19. Diagnoses included traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, closed fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur, need for assistance with personal care, and dementia with psychotic disturbance. Review of the Morse Fall Scale dated 07/28/23 indicated Resident #29 was a high risk for falling. No additional assessments were located in the medical record. No further fall risk assessments were located in the record. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognition. The resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance of two staff with toileting, dressing, and transfers. Review of the progress…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-06-23 · 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 review of the facility water management program, staff interview, and review of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Survey and Certification memo, the facility failed to ensure preventive measures for Legionella were completed according to their water management plan. This had the potential to affect all 95 residents at the facility. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of the facility binder titled Water Management Program for Building/Water Systems, dated 2021, revealed the facility was to obtain water temperatures weekly. Interview on 06/23/22 at 8:03 A.M. with the Maintenance Supervisor #755 confirmed the facility was not obtaining weekly water temperatures as per their water management program. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Survey and Certification memo 17-30-Hospitals/Critical Access Hospitals/Nursing Homes, last revised 07/06/18, revealed the facilities must have water management plans and documentation that, at a minimum, ensure each facility: 1. Conducts a facility risk assessment to identify where…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-06-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, facility documentation review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain appropriate water temperatures. This had the potential to affect 83 out of 95 residents in the facility. There were 12 residents (Resident #17, #18, #22, #24, #48, #51, #54, #58, #69, #78, #86, and #87) who did not have access to the water in the front bathroom, room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], 100 hall shower room, and 200 hall shower room. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Observation on 06/22/22 at 5:20 P.M. of the front bathroom water temperature revealed a temperature of 126 degrees with the surveyor's thermometer. Observation on 06/22/22 at 5:28 P.M. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) #755 revealed the water temperature in room [ROOM NUMBER] was 129 degrees fahrenheit and the water temperature in room [ROOM NUMBER] was 125.4 degrees fahrenheit with the facility's digital thermometer. The water temperature in the shower room on the 200 hall was 128 degrees fahrenheit. The temperature…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/29/20. admission diagnoses included repeated falls, heart failure, acute kidney failure, diabetes, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Review of Resident #39's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 was cognitively intact. Review of the MDS revealed Resident #39 required limited assistance with one-person for toileting. Resident #39 required supervision with one-person assistance for personal hygiene. Review of Resident #39's plan of care dated 04/05/22 revealed the resident had a suprapubic catheter related to neurogenic bladder. Interventions included change drainage bag per policy and to provide catheter care every shift per policy. Observation on 06/21/22 at 12:55 P.M. revealed Resident #39 was in the common dining room eating her lunch with other residents on her hall. Resident #39 was seated at the dining table and her catheter bag was hooked onto her walker. The observation revealed the catheter bag 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 · D2022-06-23 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the reason for transfer/discharge to the hospital. This affected one (Resident #36) out of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 95. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 08/11/21 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed she was hospitalized on [DATE]. There was no evidence Resident #36's representative was notified in writing of the reason for the transfer to the hospital. Interview on 06/22/22 at 3:55 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified there was no evidence Resident #36's representative was notified in writing of the reason for the transfer/discharge to the hospital.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-06-23 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Review of medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 08/11/21 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed she was hospitalized on [DATE]. There was no evidence Resident #36's representative was notified of the facility bed hold policy. Interview on 06/22/22 at 3:55 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified there was no evidence of Resident #36's representative having been notified of the bed hold notice policy for Resident #36's hospitalization/discharge on [DATE]. Based on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents and/or resident representatives of the facility's bed hold policy when a resident was transferred to the hospital. This affected two (Resident #95 and #36) out of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. 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 · Dcited before2022-06-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided adequate positioning while seated in a wheelchair. This affected one (Resident #86) out of three residents reviewed for positioning. The census was 95. Finding include: Review of the medical record for Resident #86 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, peripheral autonomic neuropathy, congestive heart failure, legal blindness, and weakness. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #86 had severely impaired cognition. Review of the assessment revealed Resident #86's mobility devices included a walker and a wheelchair. The assessment further revealed Resident #86 was not steady and was only able to stabilize with human assistance when moving from a seated to standing position, walking (with assistive devices), and surface to surface transfers. Review of the care plan dated 10/31/19, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-06-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. This affected one resident (Resident #40) out of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 95. Findings include: Review of Resident #40's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/05/21. admission diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction, heart failure, kidney failure, diabetes, and chronic respiratory failure. Review of Resident #40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #40's physician order dated 05/20/22 revealed Polyethylene Glycol (medication used to treat constipation) 3350 Electrolyte Solution Reconstituted 236 grams. The instructions read to give eight ounces by mouth one time a day for colonoscopy prep for one day. Drink one eight-ounce glass every twenty minutes until two…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-18 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Resident Council meeting minutes, Resident Council group interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow up on resident concerns of staff not passing out evening snacks. This had the potential to affect three (#14, #51, and #74) residents present in the Resident Council meetings. The facility census was 106. Findings include: Interview with the Resident Council on 07/17/19 at 10:43 AM revealed Resident #14, Resident #51, and Resident #74 stated they complain about bedtime snacks at almost every Resident Council meeting. They see snacks come to the unit on a cart but the snacks are not passed to residents on a consistent basis. They stated sometimes snacks are passed after residents are sleeping and they find the snack on their table the next morning and quite often snacks are just not passed. Review of Resident Council meeting minutes of 02/05/19 revealed residents report they have not been receiving snacks regularly the past month. The minutes dated 03/05/19 revealed residents reported continued issues with snacks in the evening. The minutes 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 · D2019-07-18 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident funds record review, medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or responsible party when the trust fund account balance was within $200.000 of the Medicaid limit for two (#20 and #43) of five residents reviewed for funds managed by the facility. The facikity identified 26 residents with trust fund accounts. The facility census was 106. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record of Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 08/17/18. Diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbance, mild cognitive impairment, muscle weakness, oral phase dysphasia, cognitive communication deficit, hypertension, major depressive disorder, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, atherosclerotic heart disease, angina pectoris, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, osteoarthritis, and other abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of the 06/30/19 quarterly statement for Resident #20's trust account, from 04/04/19 through 06/11/19 revealed Resident #20's balance was over the $2,000.00 limit set by…
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 before2019-07-18 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative the facility's bed hold and reserve bed payment policy when the resident representative elected to have the resident transferred to the hospital. This affected one (#102) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 106. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #102 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include metabolic encephalopathy, hypertension, cognitive communication deficit, and atrial fibrillation. The medical record revealed Resident #102's payer source was Medicare. Review of a progress note dated 05/05/19 at 11:08 A.M. revealed the resident refused all medication after several attempt. Documentation revealed the residents family member and physician was made aware of the medication refusal. Review of a progress note dated 05/05/19 at 11:32 A.M. revealed the resident's family member insist the resident be sent out…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-18 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode 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
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were submitted to the Centers for Medicaid/Medicare Services (CMS) for one (Resident #2) of one resident reviewed for MDS submission. The facility census was 106. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 02/14/19. Diagnoses included displaced fracture of left femur, displaced transcondylar fracture of right humerus, muscle weakness, dysphasia, oropharyngeal phase, cognitive communication deficit, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, bronchitis not specified chronic or acute, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, old myocardial infarction, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, and chronic kidney disease. The resident discharged on 03/23/19. Review of Resident #2's five-day/other MDS assessment revealed an assessment reference date (ARD) date of 02/21/19 and a completed dated of 03/20/19. There was no evidence this assessment was transmitted 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 · D2019-07-18 · 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 resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate. This affected two (#79 and #93) of 22 resident records reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. The census was 107. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #79 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, hypotension, diabetes mellitus type two, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, heart disease, and bipolar two disorder. Review of the medication administration record dated 06/19 and 07/19 revealed no evidence Resident #79 had orders for or was administered antibiotic medication from 06/30/19 to 07/06/19. Review of a 30 day MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #79 was administered antibiotic medication on five days during the seven day reference period. Interview on 07/17/19 at 10:16 A.M. with MDS Nurse #288 revealed Resident #79 was not administered antibiotic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-18 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, observation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide care to the gastrostomy tube (G Tube) insertion site for one (#309) of two residents in the facility and reviewed for G Tube care. The facility census was 106. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #309 revealed an admission date of 07/05/19. Diagnoses include respiratory failure, aphasia, dysphagia following cerebral infarction and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the July 2019 physician orders, medication administration record (MAR), and treatment admiration record (TAR) revealed no order for the care of the G tube site. Interview on 07/15/19 at 2:29 P.M. with Resident #309's husband revealed he had never observed any nurse clean around his wife's G tube. The spouse stated there was crusty material around the tube insertion site. Observation on 07/15/19 2:40 P.M. of Resident #309's G tube, revealed there was no dressing around the G Tube and there was dried, crusty matter around the G Tube insertion site. Observation on 07/17/19 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-18 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to offer/provide non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of as needed (prn) psychotropic medication. This affected one (#79) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The facility identified 28 residents receiving antianxiety medication. The census was 106. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #79 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, hypotension, diabetes mellitus type two, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, heart disease, and bipolar two. Review of the care plan dated 06/28/19, revealed Resident #79 was at risk for side effects and complications of psychotropic drug use related to anxiety. Interventions include offer, monitor, and document any non-pharmacological interventions used to deter behaviors prior to the administration of medication. Review of Resident #79's physician orders…
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 before2019-07-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to administer insulin as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#63) of one residents observed for insulin administration. The census was 106. Finding include: Observation and interview on 07/17/17 at 8:38 A.M. of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #295 revealed the LPN was preparing insulin for Resident #63. LPN #295 reported Resident #63's finger stick blood sugar was 201 and the resident was to be administered, per subcutaneous injection, a total of eight units of Novolog (aspart) insulin. Continued observation revealed LPN #295 withdrew nine units of Novolog insulin into the syringe. LPN #295 then walked into Resident #63's room, donned gloves, and cleansed the residents injection site with an alcohol prep pad. The LPN was preparing to inject the medication. The surveyor then asked LPN #295 to verify the insulin dose that was about to be administered before continuing with the procedure. LPN #295 walked out of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-18 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
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, staff and physician interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician of abnormal laboratory results for one (#316) of seven residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The total resident census was 106. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #316 revealed an admission date of 07/09/19. Diagnoses included agranulocytosis secondary to cancer chemotherapy, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, hypothryroidism, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, hyponatremia, seasonal allergic rhinitis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia, abdominal hernia without obstruction or gangrene, polyarthritis, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Review of the hospital transfer orders upon admission on [DATE] included laboratory orders for a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) to be completed on 07/09/19. Review of the orders verified with the facility attending physician, Medical Director #231, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-07-18 · 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, and policy review; the facility failed to ensure staff maintained good infection control practices, including hand hygiene, while administering medication. This affected two (#37 and #63) of five resident observed during medication administration. The census was 106. Findings include: Observation on [DATE] from 8:24 A.M. to 8:46 A.M. of medication administration revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #295 was preparing medication for Resident #37. While removing medication from the packages, one of Resident #37's medication tablets fell onto the medication cart. LPN #295 picked up the tablet off of the cart, with ungloved fingers and placed the tablet into the medication cup. LPN #295 then walked to Resident #37's room and gave the resident the cup of medication and a cup of water. While Resident #295 was taking the medication, LPN #295 tidied up the resident's bedside table, which included placing two plastic cups in the trash can. After Resident #37 had swallowed all 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OTTERBEIN SENIORLIFE — 20 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 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 19 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTTERBEIN LSC, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/16/2024 |
| OTTERBEIN HOME | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 12/16/2024 |
| GREEN, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/16/2024 |
| MILLER, JASON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/16/2024 |
| VONDERHAAR, STEVE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| WILSON, JILL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2026 |
| MADIREDDY, NAGA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/16/2024 |
| PEGG, PEPPER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/19/2025 |
| APP, LYNN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| BARTLETT, VICTORIA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| BAYLIFF, REBECCA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| BROWNSON, WILLIAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| BURKE, DANIEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| COLEMAN, ROBERT | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| FRALEY, RALPH | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| GLOSSER, HEIDI | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| HAZELBAKER, TOMAS | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
| OTTERBEIN REAL ESTATE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/16/2024 |
| OTTERBEIN TIPP CITY REAL ESTATE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/16/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 365882. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-03, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.