Van Wert Manor
160 Fox Rd, Van Wert, OH 45891 · For profit - Corporation · 62 certified beds · (419) 238-6655 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $25,490 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-08)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.6% | 5.3% | 15.4% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 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 | 6.7% | 30.1% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.9% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.5% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.9% | 25.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.7% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.3% | 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 | 92.0% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
‡ 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.
55.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 80 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.6% 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 37 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 55.2%CMS range 46.8–65.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 5.8–14.2 | 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 | 48.6% | 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 | 46.0% | 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 | 43.2% | 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 | 97.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.2% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.4–13.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 62 beds and averages 52.5 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.96 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-05-08 · 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 medical record review, staff and physician interviews, review of the guidelines from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), and policy review, the facility failed to timely identify the resident's pressure ulcer until it reached an advanced stage, and failed to accurately assess and provide timely interventions to treat the pressure ulcer. This resulted in Actual Harm to Resident #52 who was at risk for pressure ulcers and the facility found Resident #52's pressure ulcer as an unstageable pressure ulcer (Slough and/or eschar: Known but not stageable due to coverage of wound bed by slough and/or eschar) and required surgical debridement of the pressure wound. This affected one (Resident #52) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 01/12/25. Diagnoses included quadriplegia, anemia, diabetes mellitus, and diabetic neuropathy. Review of Resident #52's care plan 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 · F2025-05-08 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty for eight consecutive hours every day. This had the potential to affect all 53 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the staffing schedules dated 04/27/25 through 05/03/25 revealed the facility did not have an RN scheduled on 05/03/25. The staffing schedules dated 04/19/24 through 04/20/24 revealed the facility did not have an RN scheduled on 04/19/25. Interview on 05/07/25 at 12:20 P.M. and 1:40 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she (DON) worked 05/03/25 between the hours of 2:30 P.M. and 9:00 P.M., for a total of 6.5 hours. The DON verified there were no RN hours on 04/19/25. Interview on 05/07/25 at 12:10 P.M. with Administrator verified there was only 6.5 RN hours who worked on 05/23/25.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · 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 observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was provided with humidification per physician order. This affected one (#108) of one resident reviewed for oxygen use. The facility identified three (#13, #26, and #28) additional residents who received oxygen with humidification. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #108 revealed an admission date of 05/01/25 and a discharge date upon death of 05/07/25. Diagnoses included lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Resident #108 was admitted to the facility under the care of Hospice. Review of the Clinical admission Assessment, dated 05/01/25, revealed Resident #108 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Resident #108 received oxygen via nasal cannula with humidification. Review of the physician order initiated 05/02/25 revealed Resident #108 received oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula. The physician order dated 05/02/25 revealed Resident #108's oxygen concentrator should be wiped down weekly and 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 · F2022-12-07 · 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 reviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary kitchen area and store food appropriately. This had the potential to affect 41 (excluding #92) of 41 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Resident #92 as receiving no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 42. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen, on 12/04/22 at 8:15 A.M., revealed debris and a build up of dirt on the floor of the storage area, kitchen, refrigerator, and freezer. Observation of kitchen storage surface areas revealed a heavy build up of dust and dirt. Observation of the refrigerator revealed steam table containers of cooked food including sloppy joe, gravy, chicken noodle soup, and cream of chicken unlabeled and undated. Additional food unlabeled and undated in the refrigerator included two eggs in a container. Subsequent observations of the freezer revealed two rolls of beef on freezer floor. Interview on 12/04/22 at 8:23 A.M., with Dietary Staff #353 verified the kitchen, storage area, refrigerator, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-07 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a base line care plan included oxygen usage and respiratory treatments. This affected one (#196) of 14 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 42. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #196 revealed an admission date of 11/30/22, with diagnoses including: dementia with agitation, respiratory failure with hypoxia, hyperlipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypotension, unspecified body in respiratory tract part unspecified causing other injury, cardiomyopathy, paralysis of vocal cords and larynx, allergic rhinitis due to animal hair and dander, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery, hypertension, depression, anxiety, personal history of malignant neoplasm of breast, insomnia, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Review of base line care plan dated 11/30/22 revealed no care plan for oxygen therapy or respiratory issue. Review of physician orders for Resident #196 revealed order for humidified oxygen at two to five liters (L)…
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 · D2022-12-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement a fall care plan intervention to prevent falls. This affected one (#16) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 42. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 09/20/22. Diagnoses included: other nonspecific abnormal finding of lung field, anxiety disorder, depression, essential (primary) hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, and insomnia. Review of the form titled Nursing Fall Assessment Review, dated 09/20/22, revealed the resident was at moderate risk for falls. Review of the care plan, updated 09/21/22, revealed the resident was care planned for falls with an intervention included the bed to be in the lowest position with mats to the floor on each side of the bed. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/27/22, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Observation on 12/04/22 at 2:20 P.M., revealed Resident #16 was in bed, the fall mat…
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 · D2022-12-07 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nutritional needs were met as care planned. This affected one (#26) of three residents reviewed for meals. The facility census were 42. Findings include: Review of the medical record review for Resident #26 revealed an admission date of 02/11/21. Diagnoses included: schizoaffective disorder, liver disease, obstructive sleep apnea, major depressive disorder recurrent, cognitive communication deficit, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere with agitation, anorexia, chronic kidney disease, essential (primary) hypertension, bipolar disorder current episode depressed, hyperlipidemia, Alzheimer's disease. Review of monthly physician orders revealed an order dated 08/05/22 for regular diet, regular texture and regular consistency liquids. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/01/22, revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of the care plan, reviewed on 11/15/22, revealed Resident #26 was care planned for impaired…
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 · D2019-08-01 · 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 medical record review, review of facility policy, staff interview and review of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage instructions, the facility failed to ensure residents and resident representatives were provided with advance notice of non-coverage of Medicare Part A skilled services. This affected three (#24, #112, #113) of four residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility identified five residents discharged from skilled services in the last six months. The facility census was 62. Findings include: 1. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #113 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included congested heart failure. Further review of the medical record revealed the resident was discharged from the facility on 06/07/19. Review of a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Protection Notification Review revealed Resident #113's skilled services started on 05/07/19 and the last covered day of skilled services was 06/05/19. The facility initiated the discharge…
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 · D2019-08-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and resident record review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained aseptic technique when de-accessing a central line port-a-catheter connected to a Huber needle set. This affected one (#262) of one resident reviewed for intravenous medications use. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices while administering oral medications. This affected one (#263) of seven residents observed for medication administration. The census was 62. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #262 revealed an admission date of 07/12/19. Diagnoses included infection and inflammatory reaction due to other internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts, hyperlipidemia, type two diabetes mellitus, myasthenia gravis, hypothyroidism peripheral autonomic neuropathy, and muscle spasms. Observation on 07/29/19 at 03:36 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #400 of Resident #262 during disconnection of intravenous line tubing from a central line port-a-catheter connected to a Huber needle set. RN #400 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
$25,490 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $25,490 — penalty dated 2025-05-08
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HCF MANAGEMENT — 22 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHAD M. UNVERFERTH 12-14-11 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 12/13/2021 |
| DAVID V. UNVERFERTH 12-14-11 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JEFFREY L. UNVERFERTH 12-14-11 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOANN C. UNVERFERTH 12-29-04 REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOANN C. UNVERFERTH 12-31-12 IRREVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST FBO KENDRA M. U | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOANN C. UNVERFERTH 12-31-12 IRREVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST FBO KERRI A. RO | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOANN C. UNVERFERTH 12-31-12 IRREVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST FBO KEVAN R. UN | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOANN C. UNVERFERTH 12-31-12 IRREVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST FBO KRISTEN S. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOANN C. UNVERFERTH 12-31-12 IRREVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST FBO KYLE J. UNV | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 12/13/2021 |
| JOSEPH L. UNVERFERTH 12-15-11 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 12/13/2021 |
| LAWRENCE G. UNVERFERTH 12-13-11 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 12/13/2021 |
| R. STEVEN UNVERFERTH 12-14-11 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 12/13/2021 |
| KLAY, CELESTE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| ROMES, KERRI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/29/2019 |
| SHAW, ANTHONY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/26/2015 |
| UNVERFERTH, CHAD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2004 |
| WILLAIMS, COURTNEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/16/2022 |
| HCF MANAGEMENT, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2004 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
13 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $243K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365246. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-08, 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.