Vancrest Health Care Center

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

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.

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.

59.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 112 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 63.1% 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 65 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 93 beds and averages 74.7 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 18 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

22 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2022-10-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure 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 medical record review, observation, staff and family interview, review of the hospital documentation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure falls were investigated to determine the root cause analysis to reduce hazards, implement resident-specific interventions, and to reduce/eliminate falls and falls with major injury. This resulted in Actual Harm when Resident #16 experienced repeated falls resulting in a fractured left wrist on one event and a fractured left femur on another event with surgical repair without investigating and/or determining the cause of each fall. In between the two falls with fractures, Resident #16 fell and suffered a contusion to the left knee and the hip area. This affected one resident (#16) out of two residents reviewed for falls. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure resident safety when beds were left in the high position without staff present in the room. This had the potential for Harm but no Actual Harm occurred for two residents (#25 and #52) out of 24…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-05-01 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — pattern
  Provide 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 observation, review of the activity calendar, record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to offer a variety of activities to the residents which meet the resident's needs and preferences. This affected five (#18, #38, #43, #56, and #63) of five residents reviewed for activities. The facility identified 34 residents who regularly attended activities. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 06/24/24 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, sciatica right side, chronic kidney disease, and weakness. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had preferences that were very important to the resident which included having books, newspapers, and magazines to read, listen to music she likes, keep up with the news, do things with groups of people, do favorite activities, and participate in religious services or practices. 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident care conferences were offered and provided routinely as required. This affected two (#6 and #7) of two residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure, chronic kidney disease stage, type two diabetes mellitus, and major depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was cognitively intact. Review of the care plan conference documentation revealed Resident #6's last date of documented care conferences was 05/14/21. Interview on 04/29/25 at 4:07 P.M. with Social Services #134 verified Resident #6 has not had a formal care conference in quite a while. Social Services #134 stated care conferences were an open invitation or upon request at 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-01 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide 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

  Based on observation, record review, family and staff interview, and review of the policy, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff with activities of daily living were offered and fed their meals. This affected one (#45) resident observed during meal service. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #45 revealed an admission date of 08/01/24 with diagnoses adult failure to thrive and dementia. Resident #45 was admitted to hospice care on 12/30/24. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/22/25, revealed Resident #45 had impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for eating. Resident #45 had no significant unplanned weight loss. Review of the current physician order, dated 12/26/24, revealed Resident #45 received a diet of no added salt/no concentrated sweets, pureed texture and nectar thick liquids. Observation on 04/28/25 at 11:06 A.M. revealed Hospice Aide (HA) #274 giving report to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #114 regarding Resident #45. Observation on 04/28/25 at 11:16…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolated
  Provide appropriate foot care.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were completed per physician order. This affected one (#13) of two residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 06/13/23 with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease and type II diabetes mellitus. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/01/25, revealed Resident #13 had intact cognition. Review of the physician order initiated 04/12/25 revealed Resident #13 received betadine to the right great toe three times daily. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated April 2025 revealed Resident #13's right great toe treatment was provided once daily between 04/12/25 and 04/28/25. Review of the Weekly Wound & Skin Assessment Documentation revealed Resident #13's wound was identified 04/12/25 and initially assessed on 04/15/25. Weekly skin assessments, with measurements and description, revealed the wound 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure 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 record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at the bedside. This affected one resident (#50) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Record review for Resident #50 revealed admission date of 04/01/25 with diagnoses including fracture of right fibula, osteoporosis of left foot and ankle, effusion of right ankle, anxiety, and major depression. There was no self-administration of medication assessment. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #50 was cognitively intact. Observation on 04/29/25 at 7:24 A.M. revealed Resident #50's was lying in her bed watching television with a bedside tray at her side. There were several unidentified medications in a small plastic medication cup placed on Resident #50's bedside tray. When Resident #50 was asked about the pills, Resident #50 did not respond, but picked them up and spilled…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2023-12-07 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespread
  Have 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 review of the nursing staffing schedules and staff interviews, the facility failed to have Registered Nurse coverage for eight consecutive hours on two days as required. This had the potential to affect all 69 residents residing in the facility. Facility census was 69. Findings include: Review of the nursing staffing schedules dated 11/14/23 to 11/20/23 revealed there was no Registered Nurse present in the facility on 11/18/23 or 11/19/23. Interview on 12/06/23 at 11:06 A.M. with Director of Nursing revealed the facility did not have Registered Nurse coverage in the facility as required on 11/18/23 or on 11/19/23. This deficiency is based on incidental findings discovered during the course of this complaint investigation.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2022-10-13 · tag F0700 — pattern
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, policy review, the facility failed to accurately assess residents and obtain consent for assist rails/transfer enablers. This affected 10 residents (#02, #06, #10, #18, #24, #30, #34. #37, #50, and #52) and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 57. Findings include: Observation on 10/04/22 at 10:20 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #124 revealed the side rails on the beds of seven residents (#02, #06, #18, #34, #37, #50, and #52) were in the raised position and extended approximately two foot from the head board to two foot from the foot board on both sides of the bed. Interviews from 10:20 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. with Resident #10, Resident #30, and Resident #34 revealed they did not use the side rails and would like them removed. 1. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #02 had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-10-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to the call light. This affected two residents (#18 and #52) and had the potential to affect all 57 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 10/03/22 at 10:37 A.M. revealed Resident #18's call light was hanging from the bed, out of her reach. Interview at the time with Resident #18 revealed she could not find her call light and would like to be repositioned. Interview on 10/03/22 at 10:45 A.M., with the Administrator verified the call light was not within her reach and he ensured it was clipped to her bed sheet. Observation on 10/04/22 at 1:37 P.M. revealed Resident #52's call light was not within her reach. Interview at the time with Licensed Practical Nurse #117 verified the call light not within Resident #52's reach.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-10-13 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of the minimum data assessment. This affected two residents (#16 and #259) out 16 residents reviewed. The facility census was 57. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record of Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 07/11/22. Diagnoses included orthopedic aftercare, fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur (07/06/22), cognitive communication deficit, difficulty in walking, type II diabetes mellitus without complications, major depressive disorder, anemia and sleep apnea. Review of the admission Minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had moderate impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, and extensive assistance of one staff for transfers, walking in the room, for locomotion on unit, dressing, toilet use and for personal hygiene. Resident #16 required limited assistance of one staff for locomotion in the corridor. 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-10-13 · tag F0655 — isolated
  Create 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan was accurately completed. This affected one resident (#259) out of 24 resident reviewed. The facility census was 57. Finding include: Review of medical record for Resident #259 revealed admission date of 09/20/22. Diagnoses included local infection of the skin, diabetes, non-pressure chronic ulcer of left foot, peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and protein deficient malnutrition. The resident was admitted to hospice on 10/01/22 and remained in the facility. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #259 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, toilet use, limited assistance for transfers and eating. The skin section of the MDS documented three, stage one pressure injuries. There was no further documentation of skin conditions. Review of the progress notes of the admission skin assessment for Resident #259 revealed her buttocks was red and non-blanchable,…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to VANCREST HEALTH CARE CENTERS — 13 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $818K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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