Copper Knoll Health & Rehab LLC

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.

Met the expected recovery: 66.7% 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 27 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 75 beds and averages 64.9 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 10 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.70 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.57 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.07 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.61 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 26% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Dcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-06-17 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
  Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
  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 interviews with a resident's emergency contact and staff and record review, the facility failed to ensure confidentiality of medical records were maintained for the residents. This affected two (#60 and #65) of three residents reviewed for confidentiality of medical records. The facility census was 62.Findings include:Review of Resident #65's medical record revealed Resident #65 discharged from the facility on [DATE]. Resident #65's emergency contact person was Emergency Contact #101. Review of Resident #60's medical record revealed the resident was currently residing in the facility with diagnoses including dementia and cerebral atherosclerosis. Resident #60's contact list did not include Resident #65 nor Emergency Contact #101Interview with Emergency Contact #1 on [DATE] at 10:13 A.M. revealed upon Resident #65's discharge, they were given copies of portions of Resident #60's medical record. Emergency Contact #101 stated they did not know Resident #60. Emergency Contact #101 stated they were given…

  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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-05-13 · 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. This had the potential to affect all 65 residents residing in the facility. The census was 65. Findings include:Review of facility staffing schedules and posted staffing information revealed there was no RN coverage for 04/25/2026.Interview on 05/13/2026 at 1:27 P.M. with Administrator verified the facility did not have a RN on duty in the facility on 04/25/2026, as the staff who usually worked the weekend was not available that day and the gap of RN coverage was missed. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2983365.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-12-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide 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, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure laundry was stored to prevent the spread of infection. This had the potential to affect all 64 residents who reside in the facility. The facility census was 64.Findings Included:Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure laundry was stored to prevent the spread of infection. This had the potential to affect all 64 residents who reside in the facility. The facility census was 64.Findings Included:Observation on 12/31/25 at 8:35 A.M. with the Environmental Manager (EM) #39 of the 300 hall central bath with a linen cart with four shelves filled with linens, towels, washcloths, and other miscellaneous items had a front flap that was opened up and on top of the cart, leaving all of the items on the cart exposed. The bathtub was about one foot from the cart. Interview on 12/31/25 at the time of the observation the EM #39 stated the cover was constantly up and the items were exposed when housekeeping goes in multiple times per day in all of the central bath rooms.…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
  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 observation, interview, review of the safety data sheets, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free of accident hazards. This affected four (#01, #16, #26 and #54) out of four residents reviewed and had the potential to affect all seven (#01, #16, #26, #33, #51, #54 and #64) independently mobile residents who reside in the memory care unit. The facility census was 64.Findings include-Based on observation, interview, review of the safety data sheets, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free of accident hazards. This affected four (#01, #16, #26 and #54) out of four residents reviewed and had the potential to affect all seven (#01, #16, #26, #33, #51, #54 and #64) independently mobile residents who reside in the memory care unit. The facility census was 64.Findings Include:1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder, dementia in other…

  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 before2025-12-31 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
  Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
  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 interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure privacy of the electronic medical record. This affected two (#53 and #62) of six residents reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 64.Findings include-Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure privacy of the electronic medical record. This affected two (#53 and #62) of six residents reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 64.Findings Include:1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, end stage renal disease, major depressive disorder, and hypertension.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 had moderately impaired cognition, required supervision with eating, supervision with toileting, and partial assistance with personal hygiene.Observation and interview on 12/29/2025…

  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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-31 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
  Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to adequately monitor the administration of warfarin. This affected one (#56) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 64.Findings include-Based on medical record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to adequately monitor the administration of warfarin. This affected one (#56) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 64.Findings Include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease late onset, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, peripheral vascular disease, chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, and essential hypertension.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 had severely impaired cognition, required supervision with eating, dependent with toileting, and dependent with…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review, facility staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect 62 of 62 residents. Findings included:Review of a self-reported incident (SRI) dated 03/31/25 revealed on 03/29/25 at about 11:30 A.M., a visitor to the facility was heard speaking loudly to Resident #13 and #32, telling them they could not sit at the table they were at and it belonged to her mother and her friends. The visitor told Residents #13 and #32 no one likely them and they had been told before not to sit at this table. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #101 immediately intervened and addressed the visitor who immediately reported the incident to the weekend manager and called the Administrator. After documentation from the weekend was reviewed, it was determined the incident was more than a visitor being rude. Review of a statement by Resident #1 dated 03/31/25 revealed she was sitting at a table when a family member came in and in a loud voice said, we're going to put the tables…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure 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, review of signage on the resident unit refrigerators, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods were safely stored. This had the potential to affect all 52 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 52. Findings include: Observation on 06/05/23 at 9:00 A.M. revealed the following kitchen sanitation issues: - In the milk cooler, twenty five eight ounce individual serving cartons of chocolate milk with an expiration date of 06/03/23. - In the walk in refrigerator, there was no internal thermometer. There were eight glasses of orange fluid undated and unlabeled, two pitchers of fluid unlabeled and undated and four containers, labeled as pudding, undated. Observation on 06/07/23 at 8:07 A.M., revealed the following Unit 300 resident refrigerator sanitation issues: - There was no thermometer in the resident refrigerator. - There was an insulated lunchbag, undated and unlabeled. - There was two containers of unidentifiable food unlabeled and undated. Observation on 06/07/23 at 8:10 A.M., revealed the following…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-06-08 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was sanitary. This affected eight residents (#01, #04, #12, #16, #44, #45, #46 and #103) of 52 residents' room environment observed. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the floors were in good repair. This had the potential to affect 31 of 31 residents who could independently ambulate. The facility identified 21 residents (#01, #09, #07, #22, #20, #14, #23, #47, #08, #41, #02, #36, #15, #19, #39, #06, #07, #09, #35, #11 and #38) who were unable to independently ambulate in the facility. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #04 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included heart failure, diabetes, chronic pain, and psychotic disturbance. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #04 had moderately impaired cognition. The resident 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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-06-08 · tag F0638 — isolated
  Assure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
  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 minimum data set log, and review of the resident assessment instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed quarterly. This affected three residents (#05, #20 and #32) of four residents reviewed for timely assessments. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #05 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes, and depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of the MDS log revealed Resident #05 should have had a quarterly MDS completed on 08/02/22 and it was completed on 09/06/22. The previous quarterly MDS was completed on 05/23/22. This was greater than 90 days between MDS completion dates. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer'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.

  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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to TLC MANAGEMENT — 20 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

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 15 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

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