Life Care Center Of Westlake
26520 Center Ridge Rd, Westlake, OH 44145 · For profit - Corporation · 119 certified beds · (440) 871-3030 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Sep 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (39) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.7% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.6% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.2% | 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 | 4.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.1% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.6% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.8% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.6% | 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 | 59.7% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.4% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
44.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% 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.
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 | 44.9%CMS range 29.5–65.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.9–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 3.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 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 | 1.11 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 119 beds and averages 100.0 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 19 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.09 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.67 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
39 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 29 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-08 · 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 observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a clean, sanitary, and homelike environment for residents. This affected 20 residents (Residents #87, #34, #45, #56, #7, #100, #16, #88, #107, #5, #43, #405, #67, #44, #31, #66, #25, #92, #78, and #13) and had the potential to affect all 103 residents residing in the facility.Findings include:During an observation and interview on 06/08/26 at 1:22 P.M. with Floor Tech #401, the following concerns were identified and verified at the time of the observations:-Floor trim and hand railings throughout the building were dusty and dirty.-Carpet was heavily stained throughout the building, including the following areas: a. Between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] b. Outside room [ROOM NUMBER] c. Near the 200 Hall nurse's station, staff restroom, and utility room d. Near the staff restroom e. Outside room [ROOM NUMBER] f. Between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] g. Outside room [ROOM NUMBER] h. Outside nursing station 4-5 i. Outside room [ROOM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-08 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent. This affected two residents (Resident #19 and Resident #30) out of five residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 103.Findings include:An observation of three licensed nurses (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #110, LPN #111, and LPN #112) administering medications to five residents (Resident #19, Resident #27, Resident #30, Resident #31, and Resident #55) revealed 36 opportunities for medication errors, with 20 errors observed. This resulted in a medication error rate of 56 percent.1. A review of Resident #30's clinical record revealed an admission date of 12/30/22 with diagnoses including cerebral palsy, dementia, epilepsy, functional dyspepsia, contracted right wrist, fracture of thoracic vertebra number 11 and 12, anxiety, eye disease, constipation, allergic rhinitis, cervicalgia, constipation, malnutrition, severe intellectual disabilities, gastroesophageal reflux disease, iron deficiency…
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 · D2026-06-08 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, interview, and review of the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics, the facility failed to ensure Resident #7's indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag was covered to maintain privacy. This affected one resident (Resident #7) out of two residents reviewed for respect and dignity. The facility census was 103.Findings include:A review of Resident #7's clinical record revealed an admission date of 02/12/25 with diagnoses including vascular dementia with mood disturbance and anxiety, fracture of the fourth cervical vertebra of the neck, nasal bones, wrist and three fingers of the right hand following a fall, osteoarthritis, cerebral infarction (stroke), heart disease secondary to high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, heart arrhythmia, malnutrition, venous insufficiency, anemia, high cholesterol and blood pressure, cataracts, asthma, depression and history of brain cancer.Resident #7's plan of care initiated 04/09/26 indicated Resident #7 had an indwelling urinary catheter due to a stage IV pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss…
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 · Ddisputed · IDR2026-06-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #104's comprehensive care plan included a care plan with individualized interventions to manage Resident #104's behaviors. This affected one resident (Resident #104) out of three residents reviewed for behaviors. The facility census was 103.Findings include:A review of Resident #104's clinical record revealed an admission date of 11/04/25 with diagnoses including adult failure to thrive, dementia with psychotic disturbance, legal blindness, glaucoma, old heart attack, heart arrhythmias, low magnesium level, chronic kidney disease with heart failure, high blood pressure, malnutrition, cognitive communication deficit, prediabetes mellitus, degenerative nervous system disease, headache, anemia, osteoarthritis of both knees, Crohn's disease, high cholesterol, anxiety, depression, degenerative spine disease with lumbar region back pain.A review of Resident #104's plan of care initiated on 11/12/25 indicated Resident #104 resided on the secured memory care nursing unit (Oasis unit) with interventions including…
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 · D2026-06-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of the Nursing Rights of Medication Administration, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that nursing services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice when one licensed practical nurse (LPN) #110 did not follow accepted nursing standards for the preparation and administration of medications for two residents (Resident #19 and Resident #30) of five residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 103.Findings include:On 06/03/26 at approximately 8:30 A.M., during a medication administration observation, LPN #110 was observed retrieving a cup of crushed medications and a 30 milliliter (ml) cup of liquid medication from the medication cart for Resident #30. LPN #110 stated she had dispensed, crushed, and stored the medications earlier that morning. She then administered the liquid medication and the crushed medications mixed in pudding. LPN #110 acknowledged that pre preparing medications and storing them in the cart was not consistent with facility policy or nursing…
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 before2026-06-08 · 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 record review, interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician orders for daily weights were updated and implemented for Resident #105, failed to ensure Resident #106's weight was obtained to ensure an accurate weight was obtained, and failed to ensure a physician order was obtained prior to the application of a wound dressing to Resident #24's wound. This affected two residents (Resident #105 and #106) of three residents reviewed for weight loss and one resident (Resident #24) out of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 103. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #105 revealed resident was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 05/18/26 with diagnosis that included: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, history of subsegmental pulmonary embolism and bilateral deep vein thrombosis (on therapeutic lovenox), chronic kidney disease III, history of roux-en-y gastric bypass complicated by chronic diarrhea and malnutrition,…
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 before2026-06-08 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff documented bladder retraining program interventions as outlined in Resident #105's plan of care. This failure affected one resident (Resident #105) out of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 103.Findings include:Record review for Resident #105 showed she was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 05/18/26 with multiple chronic and complex medical conditions, including heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, pulmonary embolism, bilateral deep vein thrombosis (on therapeutic Lovenox), chronic kidney disease III, a history of Roux en Y gastric bypass with chronic diarrhea and malnutrition, cirrhosis with ascites, chronic anemia, remote CVA, chronic dizziness, repeated falls, hyperkalemia, hypocalcemia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, type II diabetes, chronic diastolic heart failure, myocardial infarction type II, memory deficits following cerebral…
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 before2026-02-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place and failed to ensure a thorough fall investigation was conducted for Resident #15. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 100.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 02/12/25. Diagnoses included vascular dementia, anxiety, osteoarthritis of right shoulder, congestive heart failure, contracture of right hand, dysphagia and depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 had impaired cognition. The resident was dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation. Review of the plan of care dated 01/02/26 revealed Resident #15 was at risk for falls due to dementia with cognitive deficits, anxiety and depression with behaviors and a history of falls. Interventions included nonskid socks at all times, a low bed for…
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 before2026-02-26 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation related to behaviors in Resident #90's medical record This affected one (Resident #90) of three residents reviewed for accuracy of documentation related to behaviors. The facility census was 100.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #90 revealed an admission date of 10/07/22. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's, wandering, anxiety, type II diabetes, and depression.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #90 had impaired cognition. The resident was independent for ambulation and required assistance for toilet and shower transfers. Resident #90 had inattention and disorganized thinking behavior that was continuously present and did not fluctuate. Additional behaviors included physical, verbal, wandering, and behaviors directed towards others hitting or scratching, and rummaging.Review of the plan of care for Resident #90 dated 01/22/26 revealed the resident had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-11 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review, resident interview, staff interviews, Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement policy and procedure for an allegation of verbal abuse. This affected one resident (#20) of three residents reviewed for verbal abuse. The facility census was 99.Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of endometrium, malignant neoplasm of cerebral meninges, and dementia.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 was alert and oriented to person, place and time and was modified independent for tasks regarding daily life.Review of the care plan dated 12/03/25 revealed Resident #20 had a behavior problem related to refusal of care and medications and was accusatory toward staff. Interventions included, but was not limited to, allowing Resident #20 to verbalize her needs, two staff present for all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 29 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-11 · 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 resident record review, resident interview, staff interviews, Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of verbal abuse. This affected one resident (#20) of three residents reviewed for verbal abuse. The facility census was 99.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of endometrium, malignant neoplasm of cerebral meninges, and dementia.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 was alert and oriented to person, place and time and was modified independent for tasks regarding daily life.Review of the care plan dated 12/03/25 revealed Resident #20 had a behavior problem related to refusal of care and medications and was accusatory toward staff. Interventions included, but was not limited to, allowing Resident #20 to verbalize her needs, two staff present for all care, and observing for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-11 · 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 resident record review, resident interview, staff interviews, Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to respond appropriately to an allegation of verbal abuse. This affected one resident (#20) of three residents reviewed for verbal abuse. The facility census was 99.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of endometrium, malignant neoplasm of cerebral meninges, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 was alert and oriented to person, place and time and was modified independent for tasks regarding daily life. Review of the care plan dated 12/03/25 revealed Resident #20 had a behavior problem related to refusal of care and medications and was accusatory toward staff. Interventions included, but was not limited to, allowing Resident #20 to verbalize her needs, two staff present for all care, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-11 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of employee personnel files, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure three of five sampled staff members were certified in Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 99.Findings include: 1. Review of the personnel file for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #445 revealed she was hired on [DATE]. CNA #445 had no current CPR certification.Interview on [DATE] at 3:20 P.M. with CNA #445 revealed she was not currently certified in CPR. CNA #445's CPR certification expired in [DATE].2. Review of the personnel file for Registered Nurse (RN) #301 revealed she was hired on [DATE]. RN #301 had no current CPR certification.Interview on [DATE] at 3:25 P.M. with RN #301 revealed she was not currently certified in CPR. RN #301's CPR certification expired in [DATE].3. Review of the personnel file for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #312 revealed she was hired on [DATE]. LPN #312 had no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-11 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of employee personnel files and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure two of five staff members received annual performance reviews. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 99.Findings include: 1. Review of the personnel file for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #445 revealed she was hired on 09/24/20. CNA #445 did not have a current annual performance review in place.Interview on 12/11/25 at 3:20 P.M. with CNA #445 revealed she did not have a current annual review completed.2. Review of the personnel file for CNA #331 revealed she was hired on 06/24/11. CNA #331 did not have a current annual performance review in place.Interview on 12/11/25 at 3:30 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed CNAs #331 and #445 did not have annual performance reviews in place. The DON verified both CNAs were still currently on the schedule and actively working shifts throughout the facility. After evidence of annual performance reviews was requested, the DON stated that CNA #445 was currently actively…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-11 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to administer medications according to physician orders and manufacturer instructions. This affected two residents (#16 and #21) out of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 99.Findings include:1. Observation of a medication administration pass for Resident #16 on 12/09/25 at 10:00 A.M. by Registered Nurse (RN) #301 revealed the nurse drew one pill out of a digoxin 125 microgram (mcg) container which had attached pharmacist instructions to hold the medication if the heart rate was under 60 beats per minute (BPM). The nurse administered the medication without checking the resident's heart rate.Record review of Resident #16 revealed an order dated 11/27/25 for 125 mcg of digoxin to be given daily for heart failure, and to hold the dose for a heart rate under 60 BPM.Interview on 12/09/25 at 10:08 A.M. with RN #301 confirmed the above findings, and verified Resident #16's heart rate was not checked prior to medication administration. Observation at the time of the interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-10 · 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, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to monitor Resident #97 for injuries after a fall. This affected one resident (#97) of three resident injuries reviewed. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depression, insomnia, drug induced subacute dyskinesia, mixed hyperlipidemia, urinary incontinence, and constipation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/08/24, revealed Resident #97 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the progress notes, dated 12/05/24, revealed Resident #97 was found with her knees on the ground, legs out of her bed, and head/torso still lying on her bed. Staff documented that there was discoloration to Resident #97's knees and a small area to her right elbow. There was no other documentation to describe what the injuries/areas looked like. Review of Resident #97 medical records, including bath/shower records, skin…
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 · D2024-09-14 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, review of a facility investigation, review of email documents, review of self-reported incidents (SRIs), and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation. This affected one (#75) of four residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 95. Findings Include: Review of Resident #75's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/08/24. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and epilepsy. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #75 was cognitively intact and required one-person physical assistance for his activities of daily living. Further review of the medical record revealed Resident #75 was discharged to a nursing facility closer to his family on 07/15/24. Review of a self-reported incident dated 07/10/24 revealed, on 7/10/24, a detective visited the facility to discuss an investigation that was occurring with his…
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 before2024-02-29 · 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, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure an allegation of staff to resident abuse was reported to the state agency as required. This affected one resident (#80) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 102. Findings Include: Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anoxic brain damage, dementia with other behavioral disturbance, generalized anxiety disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #80 had moderately impaired cognition and was independent for ambulation. Interview on 02/29/24 at 10:00 A.M. with Human Resources Director (HR) #204 revealed that there was an incident this past weekend that involved Resident #80 and a dietary staff member. HR #204 stated that he is investigating the incident of Dietary Aide (DA) #214 holding a resident's wrist, but it wasn't abuse. Interview on 02/29/24 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-06 · 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 record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed to hold Resident #100's tube feed in preparation for a dentist appointment. This affected one resident (Resident #100) of three reviewed for quality of care. Findings include: Record review of Resident #100 revealed an initial admission date of 04/04/19 and readmission of 07/29/23. She was discharged on 02/02/24. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, anoxic brain damage, pneumonia and sepsis. Review of the progress noted dated 01/09/24 at 10:38 A.M. revealed the resident's tube feeding was to be stopped at midnight related to dental appointment on 01/15/24. Review of Resident #100's physician orders for 01/14/24 revealed the resident was to be NPO (nothing by mouth) after midnight and the tube-feed was to be held. Review of the Medication Administration Record for January 2024 revealed the order for NPO status on 01/14/24 was signed off by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #223. Interview on 02/06/24 at 1:18 P.M. with LPN #223 revealed she was told Resident #100 had an appointment…
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 · D2024-02-06 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #29 received adequate foot care to regularly trim toenails. This affected one resident (Resident #29) out of three residents reviewed for foot care. Findings include: Record review of Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 10/07/22. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease, major depressive disorder and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of Resident #29's medical record including Certified Nurse Practitioner's monthly notes from August 2023 through February 2024 revealed no indication the resident's toenails were trimmed or evidence the resident was assessed for podiatry needs. There was no indication of refusals or attempts to cut the resident's toenails. Interview on 02/05/24 from 10:00 A.M. to 10:17 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #203 and LPN #205 revealed they did not believe Resident #29 was seen by a podiatrist. They stated a podiatrist would need to cut the resident's toenails because they were diabetic. Interview on 02/05/24 at 10:13 A.M. with Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) #225 stated…
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 before2024-02-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure Resident #100's medical record accurately reflected NPO (nothing by mouth) status. This affected one of three residents reviewed (Resident #29 and Resident #95). The census was 95. Findings include: Record review of Resident #100 revealed an initial admission date of 04/04/19 and readmission of 07/29/23. She was discharged on 02/02/24. Diagnoses included Metabolic encephalopathy, anoxic brain damage, pneumonia and sepsis. Review of the orders for Resident #100 revealed the resident was to be NPO (nothing by mouth) after midnight and the tube-feed was to be held. The order was signed off by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #223. Interview on 02/06/24 at 1:18 P.M. with LPN #223 revealed she said she was only working four hours that day. She stated she was told Resident #100 had an appointment the next morning but was not told about the NPO status. LPN #223 stated she was told to sign off on orders early to make it easier for next person covering the shift. She did not recall who told her this. She stated she overlooked…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure food was labeled and dated properly and was stored in a clean and sanitary manner to prevent contamination and food borne illness. This had the potential to affect 95 of 96 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#8) who received nothing by mouth (NPO). Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour conducted on 10/16/23 from 9:03 A.M. through 9:28 A.M. revealed the following: • Two full packages of hot dog buns were dated use by 10/09/23. • In the deli cooler there was a package of undated shaved turkey and a container of shredded lettuce that was brown/slimy at the bottom. • In the freezer there was a plastic bag with ten pieces of breaded fish not labeled or dated. • The microwave had food spilled inside. These findings were verified by Dietary Manager #883 at the time of the observations.
- Potential for harm · F2023-10-19 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain its garbage disposal area in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect 95 of 96 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#8) who received nothing by mouth (NPO). Findings include: Observation of the facilities garbage disposal area with Dietary Manager #883 on 10/16/23 at 9:20 A.M. revealed side doors to two dumpsters were open and garbage bags were protruding out the sides. There was some trash around the dumpster such as plastic cups, plastic gloves, dirt, and leaves. These observations were verified by Dietary Manager #883 at the time of the observation. An additional observation on 10/18/23 at 1:11 PM. bags of trash hanging out of the dumpster was verified by the Administrator at 1:26 PM.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-10-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation, review of the facility insulin storage parameters, and interview, the facility failed to ensure insulin containers were labeled with opening dates to ensure they were not used beyond their recommended expiration. This affected four of four residents with insulin stored on the 200-hall medication cart (Resident's #34, #97, #9, and #30). The facility census was 96. Findings include: Observation of the unrefrigerated 200-hall medication cart on 10/16/23 at 4:50 P.M. revealed insulin injection pens had no date of opening recorded either on the pens or the plastic bags they were stored in. This affected two of two insulin pens for Resident #34, two of three pens for Resident #97, one of one pen for Resident #9, and one of one pen for Resident #30. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #891 on 10/16/23 at 4:50 P.M. confirmed the above findings, and that she could not identify what date the pens were opened. Record review of the facility's undated insulin storage parameters revealed insulin could only be stored at room temperature for a certain number of days before…
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 · D2023-10-19 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all required notices of potential financial obligation were provided to residents prior to the discontinuation of skilled services while using their Medicare Part A benefit. This affected three residents (#38, #69, and #98) of three residents reviewed for appropriate beneficiary notices. Findings include: Review of the beneficiary notice worksheet provided by the facility during the annual survey revealed the following: 1. Resident #38 was discharged from skilled therapy services while using their Medicare Part A benefit on 05/18/23. Resident #38 remained in the facility after discharge. 2. Resident #69 was discharged from skilled therapy services while using their Medicare Part A benefit on 05/31/23. Resident #69 remained in the facility after discharge. 3. Resident #98 was discharged from skilled therapy services while using their Medicare Part A benefit on 05/05/23. Resident #98 remained in the facility after discharge. Review of the notices provided to Resident's #38, #68, and #98 upon discontinuation of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-19 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, 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 a valid level one pre-admission screen and resident review (PASRR) was completed prior to Resident #26's admission to the facility from a community setting. This affected one resident (#26) of three residents reviewed for PASRR. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from home with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, dementia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Review of Resident #26's PASRR records revealed a PASRR was completed on 04/07/22 by Residents #26's community case management agency. The form noted she was admitting the resident to the facility from a community setting. Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #845 verified that Resident #26's PASRR was not completed prior to admission as required during an interview on 10/19/23 at 10:30 A.M.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-19 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services to diagnose and treat a suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in a timely manner for Resident #43. This affected one resident (#43) of one resident reviewed for UTIs. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 09/09/21 with diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, overactive bladder, anxiety disorder, and chronic diastolic congestive heart failure. Review of the Urinary Incontinence Tool assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 had urge incontinence and would try to use restroom. Resident #43 was reported to have a history of UTIs with historical symptoms including confusion and lethargy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 had Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Resident #43 required…
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 before2023-09-21 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #5's elopement events were submitted as self-reported incidents to the Ohio Department of Health incident tracking website. This affected one (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed for elopement. The total census was 99. Findings include: Record review of Resident #5 revealed he was admitted to the facility 07/13/21 and had diagnoses including dementia, alcohol abuse, and major depressive disorder. A probate physician assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had severe cognitive, judgement, insight, and memory deficits which rendered him incapable of self-management of person and estate. He had a court-ordered guardian in place as of 12/23/21. Review of his minimum data set assessment on 06/20/23 revealed he refused to complete a mental status assessment and required supervision assistance for transfers and locomotion. He was assessed as having verbal behaviors four to six of seven days and rejection of care one to three of seven days.…
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 before2023-09-21 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent two elopement events by Resident #5. This affected one (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed for elopement. The total census was 99. Findings include: Record review of Resident #5 revealed he was admitted to the facility 07/13/21 and had diagnoses including dementia, alcohol abuse, and major depressive disorder. A probate physician assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had severe cognitive, judgement, insight, and memory deficits which rendered him incapable of self-management of person and estate. He had a court-ordered guardian in place as of 12/23/21. Review of his minimum data set assessment on 06/20/23 revealed he refused to complete a mental status assessment and required supervision assistance for transfers and locomotion. He was assessed as having verbal behaviors four to six of seven days and rejection of care one to three of seven days. His elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was at risk for elopement due…
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 F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure staff washed/sanitized their hands appropriately during medication administration for Resident #20 and failed to don appropriate personal protective equipment and handle laundry appropriately during wound care for Resident #68. This affected one out of three residents observed for medication administration and one out of two residents observed for wound care (#20 and #68). The facility census was 105. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, polyneuropathy, hypertensive heart disease, osteoarthritis, lymphedema, bipolar disorder, anxiety, diverticulosis, urinary tract infection, heart arrhythmias, irritable bowel syndrome and hyperlipidemia. A review of Resident #20's physician orders dated 08/01/23 to 08/31/23 indicated to administer acetaminophen 500 milligrams (mg) orally three times a day, vitamin D 100 micrograms (mcg) orally in the morning,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-02-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in clean and sanitary conditions and ensure handwashing was performed during food preparation to prevent potential contamination and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all 113 residents residing in the facility with the exception of Resident #41 who received nothing by mouth. Findings include: 1. Tour of the kitchen on 02/24/20 from 8:36 A.M. to 8:53 A.M. with Dietary Director (DD) #300 revealed the stove had black buildup that appeared to be hard black grease between the eyes of the stove and near the griddle which also has black grease buildup. The convection oven had various food splatters, possibly grease. The blade of the commercial can opener had caked on blackish buildup. The reach in cooler on the right side of the wall closer to the dish room there was various crumbs and food splatter on the inside bottom shelf of the cooler and on the outside of the bottom portion of the cooler. The scoops for the containers that housed the bulk flour, rice, and sugar were…
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 · D2020-02-27 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure privacy was provided for Resident #99 during a physical assessment. This affected one resident (#99) of 38 residents residing on the 600 Hall with the exception of Resident #41 who does not eat in the dining room. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, receptive-expressive language disorder and hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive deficits with disorganized thinking. On 02/26/20 beginning a 11:50 A.M., a meal observation was made in the 600 Hall dining room. At 12:09 P.M., two women, one with a stethoscope around her neck approached Resident #99 who was seated in the dining room. One of the ladies asked to look at the resident's legs for swelling. After Resident #99 lifted her pants legs, one of the women assessed the resident's legs. One of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-01-16 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely reach a resolution to resident concerns regarding call lights. This affected 18 residents, Resident #102, Resident #49, Resident #35, Resident #254, Resident #98, Resident #94, Resident #48, Resident #86, Resident #79, Resident #60, Resident #10, Resident #87, Resident #16, Resident #18, Resident #92, Resident #50, Resident #42, Resident #80, of 18 residents that attended the resident group meeting .It had the potential to affect previous meeting attendee with concerns not resolved. The facility census was 105. Findings include: Interview on 01/14/19 at 1:39 P.M. with residents in the resident group meeting revealed the resident council has brought up concerns regarding call lights for the last ten months and have not gotten a response until two weeks ago. During the meeting Resident #48 stated the call light response time is delayed because the facility was short staffed. Resident #80 stated she had to wait 50 minutes last night for assistance…
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 · E2019-01-16 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Long-Term Care Ombudsman of Resident #43 transfer to the hospital within 30 days of hospitalization. This affected one (Resident #43) of one residents reviewed for hospitalization, with the potential to affect nine (Resident # 16, Resident #17, Resident #73, Resident #102, Resident #9, Resident #42, Resident #77, Resident #89, and Resident #104) of ten residents that were transferred to the hospital from [DATE] through December 2018. The facility census was 105. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, altered mental status, bipolar disorder, depression, and diabetes mellitus. She was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Interview with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #106 on 01/15/19 at 3:16 P.M. revealed the facility was not notifying the Long-Term Care Ombudsman of residents being transferred to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-01-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure tuberculin vials were dated. This affected two out of three vials of tuberculin solution in one of two medication rooms and had the potential to affect any of the seven residents (#97, #153, #253, #254, #303, #304 and #305) who were admitted in the facility for the past 30 days and use insulin. The facility census was 102. Findings include: Observation of the medication room in the locked unit on 1/16/19 at 12:50 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #100 revealed two boxes of tuberculin solution for Mantoux (tuberculosis) testing not dated when the vials were opened. LPN#100 confirmed the findings and stated she knew the vials should be dated when opened. Review of the facility policy, Medication Storage Parameters in the facility, revised 03/31/2017, revealed vials should be dated when opened and discharged 30 days after opening. The Director of Nursing confirmed on 01/16/18 at 2:05 P.M. multi use tuberculin vials should be dated when opened and discarded 30 days after opening.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-01-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner, that milk was stored to prevent contamination and food products were dated when opened. This had the potential to affect 103 out of 105 residents who ate meals in the facility's kitchen. Findings include: Observations during the initial tour of the kitchen on 01/13/19 from 8:11 A.M. through 8:50 A.M. with [NAME] #104 revealed that a bag of danishes and diced chicken in the walk-in freezer were not labeled and dated; breakfast gravy in the walk-in refrigerator was not labeled or dated; the wall behind the coffee machine had food splatter on it; the wall as you come into the kitchen had food splatter on it; two food carts that went to the floors had food residue inside and outside of them; the bins of sugar, flour and rice were not dated plus had scoops inside the bins touching the product and one trash can out of four in the kitchen had a lid on it. The dish area revealed that there was a Styrofoam bowl, plastic medicine cup and food debris under…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-01-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on Interview, observation and record review the facility failed ensure proper handwashing procedures during Medication Administration. This affected one resident (Resident #9) of three Residents (Resident #9, #39 and #98) observed for medication administration and had the potential to effect 15 Residents (Resident #1, #8, #9, #15, #43, #56, #58, #72, #74, #76, #85, #87,#91, #101, #305) who receive medication administered by a nurse in the 200 hallway. The facility also failed to ensure proper disinfection of the glucometer devise. This affected one resident (Resident # 63) who received accuchecks, blood sugar reading, and had the potential to effect six Resident (Resident #53, #73, #89, #95, #99 and #253) who ordered accuchecks. The facility census was 105. Finding Include: 1. During a medication administration observation on 01/20/18 at 8:10 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #302 administered medications to Resident #9. The nurse prepared medications and placed them in a medication cup and walked down to resident's room. Resident #9 was receiving care and the door was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-01-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to revise Resident # 73 and Resident #24 Care Plan. This affected two residents (Resident #73 and #24) of 21 residents reviewed for Care Plans. The facility census was 105. Finding Include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #73 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis included diabetes, bilateral below the knee amputee, major depressive disorder, muscle weakness and hypertension. Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment, dated 11/18/18, documented Resident #73 was cognitively intact, needed extensive assist with bed mobility and toilet use and required total dependence with transfers, was frequent incontinent of urine and always incontinent of stool. Review of Physician order dated 11/18/18 documented to use a Hoyer lift, an assisted device used to lift patients, for all transfers. Observation on 01/15/16 at 8:32 A.M. of two State Tested Nurse Aide(STNA) #350 and # 351 transferring Resident #73 from the bed to his wheelchair not using a Hoyer…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-01-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to accurately document Resident #48 blood sugars in the Medication Administration Record. This affected one Resident (#48) of 21 Residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 105. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #48 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis included diabetes, muscle weakness, Parkinson's, difficulty swallowing and hypertension. Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment, dated 11/17/18, documented Resident #48 was cognitively intact, needed limited assistance with bed mobility, transferring and the use of toilet. Physician order dated 03/14/17 documented to obtain blood sugars at 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. and administer insulin according to the sliding scale. Resident may take check own blood sugar. Review of Medication Administration Record (MAR) for January 2019 revealed all blood sugars were documented accurately. December 2018 revealed no documentation of blood sugars at 8:00 A.M. on the 24th, 30th and 31st…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRESTON, FORREST | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/06/1976 |
| LONG, ZOFIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/15/2004 |
| MCDERMOTT, DOUGLAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/15/2022 |
| SIMMERMAN, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/25/2021 |
| FLETCHER, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2021 |
| LAY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/09/2018 |
| SWANKER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2022 |
| ZIEGLER, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/16/1999 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/21/1994 |
| HENRY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/16/1999 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/22/2000 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/1996 |
| MARCU, MARINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2025 |
| PRESTON, AUBREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/27/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
About 87% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $918K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365048. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-10-19, 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.