Mill Manor Care Center
983 Exchange St, Vermilion, OH 44089 · For profit - Individual · 33 certified beds · (440) 967-6614 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (17% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 15.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 18.5% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.9% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.4% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.2% | 94.5% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.1% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.9% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 51.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 27% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 33 beds and averages 29.8 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.47 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 17% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-14 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 ensure residents receiving psychotropic medications were adequately monitored for effectiveness and adverse reactions. This affected five (#1, #3, #11, #19, and #22) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 23.Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 06/03/25 and a discharge date of 11/20/25. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, and anxiety. Review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #1's physician orders dated 06/03/25 revealed orders for Prozac (an antidepressant) 40 milligrams (mg) daily for depression related to major depressive disorder and Buspar (an antianxiety…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 implement physician order changes identified during a medication regimen review (MRR). This affected one (#19) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 23.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified intestinal obstruction, constipation, and hypothyroidism. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was cognitively impaired.Review of Resident #19's medication regimen review (MRR) signed and dated by the physician on 11/06/25 revealed an note to change the stool softener, docusate sodium 100 milligrams (mg) to be administered as needed.Review of Resident #19's physician orders dated 11/11/25 revealed an order for docusate sodium 100 milligrams (mg) with instructions to give one tablet by mouth two times a day. Review of Resident #19's medication administration records…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, review of the Ohio Department of Health's (state survey agency) enhanced information dissemination collection (EIDC) system (computer database used by nursing facilities to report allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation), and policy review the facility failed to ensure an allegation of alleged physical abuse was reported to the state survey agency (The Ohio Department of Health) as required. This affected one (Resident #28) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 26. Findings Include Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (3.0) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance for two staff persons for completing her activities of daily living. Review of Resident #28's record revealed no there were no documented notifications of the incident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-06 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure it completed a thorough investigation related to an allegation of physical abuse by staff to a resident. This affected one (Resident #28) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 26. Findings Include Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (3.0) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance for two staff persons for completing her activities of daily living. Review of the incident report dated 05/25/24 revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #900 stated at about 11:40 P.M. on 05/24/24 she was sitting and doing daily charting when she heard screaming coming from Resident #28's room. Upon entering the room STNA #900 noted that Resident #28 was physically combative with STNA #901 whom was attempting to provide…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the hospice contract, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pain medications were available for a resident experiencing pain and discomfort at the end of life. This affected one (Resident #32) of three residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 28. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 01/10/18 and a discharge date of 02/12/24. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, dementia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was admitted to hospice services. Resident #32 was cognitively impaired. Review of the physician orders for Resident #32 revealed an admission date to hospice care on 02/07/24, and morphine sulfate 20 milligram (mg)/milliliter (ml) and give 0.5 ml every two hours for pain and/or shortness of breath (SOB), written on 02/09/24 at 2:50 P.M. Review…
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 · E2023-09-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the residents with a reasonably quiet and peaceful environment. This affected one resident (#6) and had the potential to affect 10 residents residing on the 100-hall. The facility census was 30. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/22/22. Diagnoses included anxiety, dysphagia, and depression. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/31/23, revealed Resident #20 was cognitively impaired. Review of the behavior and intervention flow sheets, revealed Resident #20 was yelling on 01/02/23 at 3:00 A.M., on 01/05/23 at 12:00 A.M., on 01/20/23 at 5:00 A.M., on 01/21/23 at 4:00 A.M., on 01/29/23 at 4:00 A.M., on 01/30/23 at 1:00 A.M., on 03/06/23 at 9:00 P.M., and on 03/26/23 at 12:45 A.M. All attempted non-pharmacological interventions were ineffective. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed on 07/22/23 at 8:00 P.M.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-07 · 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 staff interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments for the residents. This affected three (Residents #07, #12, and #23) of five residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility census was 30. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #07 revealed an admission date of 09/27/22. Diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident (stroke) with apraxia (a neurological syndrome characterized by difficulty in performing daily tasks even if the instructions are understood), and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) and hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) affecting right dominant side. Review of Resident #07's physician orders revealed an order dated 09/27/22 for Plavix (an antiplatelet medication) 75 milligram (mg) one tablet daily. Review of Resident #07's medication administration record (MAR) for July 2023 revealed Plavix was received daily. Resident #07 received no anticoagulant (blood thinning)…
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 before2023-09-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's compression stockings and a hand splint were implemented per physician order. This affected one (Resident #20) of one resident reviewed for physician-ordered devices. The facility census was 30. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/22/22. Diagnoses included anxiety, dysphagia, and depression. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/31/23, revealed Resident #20 was cognitively impaired and was totally dependent on assistance from two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of Resident #20's current physician orders for September 2023, identified an order for compression stockings to bilateral lower extremities one time per day for edema in A.M. before getting out of bed, may apply over dressing to lower right leg, and at bedtime to remove compression socks. The resident also had an order to apply right hand splint daily with A.M. care and off with P.M. care, remove if not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were in place per physician's order. This affected two (Residents #23 and #234) of three residents reviewed for fall interventions. The facility census was 30. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #234 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included frequent falls, generalized weakness, ataxia (impaired coordination), and chronic back pain. Review of the baseline admission care plan, dated 08/29/23, identified the physician's orders serve as the initial care plan until a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented. Review of Resident #234's physician orders revealed an order dated 08/29/23 for Universal Fall Precautions. Review of the document titled Universal Fall Interventions, undated, revealed beds should be placed in the low position. Observation on 09/05/23 at 8:40 A.M. revealed Resident #234 lying crooked in the bed. Resident #234's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-07 · 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 record review, observations, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's head of bed was elevated per physician order during tube feeding administration. This affected one (#22) of one resident reviewed for tube feeding (TF). The facility identified one resident receiving TF. The facility census was 30. Findings include: Review of Resident #22's medical record, revealed an admission date of 01/08/22. Diagnoses included aphasia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and dysphagia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 07/16/23, revealed Resident #22 was severely cognitively impaired and was totally dependent on assistance from staff for activities of daily living. The resident had a feeding tube. Review of the current physician orders for September 2023, identified orders for Jevity 1.5 continuous tube feeding at 40 milliliters per hour and elevate head of bed between 30 and 45 degrees for all medications/feedings. Review of the plan of care, dated 08/11/22, revealed Resident #22 had altered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-07 · 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 observations, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene after care was provided to Resident #03. This affected one resident (#03) of four residents reviewed for appropriate hand hygiene. The facility census was 30. Findings include: Observation on 09/05/23 at 9:04 A.M. revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #248 entered Resident #03's room. She informed Resident #03 it was time for breakfast, and offered to assist Resident #03 in repositioning to sit on the edge of the bed. STNA #248 retrieved Resident #03's shoes, and applied Resident #03's shoes to both feet. STNA #248 touched both of Resident #03's feet with ungloved hands as she applied Resident #03's footwear. STNA #248 assisted Resident #03 in sitting edge of bed. STNA #248 exited the room and did not perform hand hygiene. Observation on 09/05/23 at 9:05 A.M. revealed STNA #248 retrieved Resident #03's breakfast tray from the hall cart. STNA #248 delivered the tray to Resident #03, and proceeded to remove the lid which covered the plate, 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 before2021-04-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Resident's blood pressure was consistently monitored as ordered. This affected one Resident (#22) of five reviewed for adequate monitoring. The facility census was 28. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease and essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident #22's physician orders dated 02/19/21 revealed an order for Diltiazem (for high blood pressure) 120 milligrams (mg), every day. The order included to monitor the resident's blood pressure (BP) daily for 14 days and report the findings to the nurse practitioner for review after two weeks. Review of Resident #22's medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) for the period 02/19/21 through 03/05/21 revealed there was no evidence the resident's BP was monitored on 02/20/21, 02/21/21, 02/22/21, 02/23/21, 02/26/21,…
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 before2021-04-15 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure ordered medications were documented as administered. This affected one Resident (#4) of five reviewed for medication review. The facility census was 28. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, agitation, history of a stroke, weight loss, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review Resident #4's physician orders and Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following: 1. Divalproex sodium sprinkles (anti-convulsant), 250 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice a day was ordered on 10/02/20. Review of the MAR revealed no evidence the medication was administered on 01/06/21, 01/07/21, 01/13/21, 02/10/21, 02/28/21, 03/08/21 for evening dose. There was no evidence the medication was given in the morning on 02/15/21 and 03/31/21. 2. Melatonin (for sleep) 3 mg by mouth every evening was ordered on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RANKIN, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 11/01/2004 |
| RANKIN, WENDY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 11/01/2004 |
| RECKO, CRAIG | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 366031. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-14, 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.