Rae-Ann Westlake
28303 Detroit Rd, Westlake, OH 44145 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (440) 871-0500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 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 | 4.2% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 72.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 1.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.9% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.3% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.9% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.5% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 59.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.9% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.45 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.48 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 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.
33.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 38 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 60 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 33.8%CMS range 19.1–44.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.2–12.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 48.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 26.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 48.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.7% | 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 | 1.3% | 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 | 8.9% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 4.3–14.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.20 | 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 130 beds and averages 106.1 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 24 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 3.42 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 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 3.57 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.63 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2021-09-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed ensure Resident #34 recieved staff asstistance to shower. Actual Harm occurred when Resident #34 was showering unattended and fell fracturing her shoulder. This affected one (Resident #34) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 03/06/20 with diagnoses including frontal lobe executive function deficit following a cerebral infarction, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, difficulty walking, and history of falls. Review of the fall risk assessments dated 03/15/21, 05/04/21, and 07/29/21 revealed the resident was at high risk for falls. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 07/29/21, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. The resident was independent for bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation. The resident required one-staff physical assistance for bathing. Review of the plan of care dated 08/24/21 revealed the resident was at risk for falls due 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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #152 received timely incontinence care. This affected one (Resident #152) of two residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 110. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #152 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of anterior wall of bladder, COVID-19, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #152 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 that indicated she was alert and oriented to person, place, and time, and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 01/04/24 revealed Resident #152 had a self-care performance deficit related to ambulatory dysfunction and cervical myelopathy with interventions that included provide physical assistance with toileting of two…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #6 was receiving an adequate amount of fluids to meet her basic needs. This affected one of one resident reviewed for hydration. The facility census was 110. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #6 was admitted into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified dementia, and disorders of electrolyte and fluid balance. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired and required hands on assistance of two staff persons for completing activities of daily living. Observation on 02/05/24 at 11:22 A.M. revealed Resident #6 sitting in a Broda wheelchair (a wheelchair that provides supportive positioning through a combination of tilt, recline, enhancing patient safety and support) in her room, a Styrofoam cup with a lid and a straw filled with water was sitting on the bedside table placed behind Resident #6, where she was unable 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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate assessment before applying side rails to a bed. This affected one (Resident #44) of five residents reviewed for accident hazards. The total census was 110. Findings include: Observation on 02/05/24 at 9:34 A.M. revealed Resident #44 had a raised side rail on each side of his bed. Record review of Resident #44 revealed he was admitted to the facility 11/14/23 and had diagnoses including lumbar fracture, muscle weakness, and obesity. His current care plan did not include any mention of side rails. Review of his assessments since admission revealed no evidence he was assessed for entrapment risk or appropriate use of bed rails. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 02/07/24 at 12:24 P.M. confirmed the above findings.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, medication error/incident report review, order summary review, facility investigation time line review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. This affected one (Resident #101) of one resident reviewed for admission medications and one (Resident #71) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, epilepsy and unspecified intellectual disabilities. Review of the Medicare five day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #101 was moderately cognitively impaired and required hands on assistance of one staff person for completing activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the medication error/incident report dated 11/17/23 timed 2:00 P.M. revealed Resident #101 was admitted to the facility on the evening of 11/16/23. On the following day 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 · D2024-02-08 · 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 record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record for Resident #101. This affected one of thirty sampled residents. The facility census was 110. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy, epilepsy and unspecified intellectual disabilities. Review of the Medicare five day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #101 was moderately cognitively impaired and required hands on assistance of one staff person for completing activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of census records for Resident #101 revealed Resident #101 was discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. Review of the electronic and hard chart revealed no information related to the reason Resident #101 was discharged to hospital or condition at the time Resident #101 left the facility to go to the hospital. Interview with 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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — isolatedHave policies on smoking.
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, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure smoking assessments and care plans were completed in a timely manner. This affected two residents (#58 and #152) of two reviewed for smoking. The facility identified twelve residents (#2, #22, #24, #42, #58, #59, #68, #92, #102, #103, #104, #152) who smoked. The facility census was 110. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #152 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of anterior wall of bladder, COVID-19, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #152 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 that indicated she was alert and oriented to person, place, and time, and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 01/04/24 revealed Resident #152 had no care plan in place 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 · Ecited before2023-11-13 · 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 observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19. This had the potential to affect 16 (#89, #24, #51, #68, #41, #96, #99, #5, #57, #9, #93, #74, #66, #73, #75, and #30) of 16 residents residing on the affected hall. The facility census was 101. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #89 revealed an admission date of 09/12/22, with a current diagnosis of COVID-19. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #89 dated 09/06/23, revealed Resident #89 was cognitively intact. Resident #89 required assistants, was not steady, and used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #89 dated 11/07/23 revealed Resident #89 had an active COVID-19 diagnosis. Interventions included to maintain infection control per Centers of Disease Control (CDC) Prevention guidelines latest recommendations. Review of the physician orders for Resident #89 dated 11/07/23 revealed droplet precautions due to COVID-19 infection.…
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 before2021-09-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all 65 residents who received food from the kitchen. The census was 65. Findings include: 1. Initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 09/27/21 5:58 A.M. to 6:25 A.M. with Registered Dietitian (RD) #44. Above a stainless-steel food preparation table holding the uncovered meat slicer and food processor was a heavily soiled ceiling and side wall of the hood fire suppression unit. The ceiling and side wall had dried on splatters of food crumbs and staining. RD #44 said she believed while processing food some had blown up to the ceiling and had not been cleaned up yet. Next to the hand washing sink were two black plastic polymer dish carts having multiple dividers to separate and stack dishes inside the carts. Both were uncovered, full of dishes and thermal dome covers leaving the clean dishes and domes open for back…
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 · E2021-09-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents on the secured unit had a dignified dining experience. This affected eleven (Resident's #5, #7, #14, #27, #30, #36, #46, #47, #50, #51 and #53) eating in the dining room during the observations and had the potential to affect all 13 residents living on the unit. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Record review was conducted of the resident council minutes dated 06/23/21 and 07/21/21 and signed by the Administrator. A concern was noted on 06/23/21 residents would like to have their dining room trays come out with the person they sit with. It was noted to resolve the problem a seating chart was put in the kitchen to assist with loading up trays in an orderly fashion. On 07/21/21 minutes it was noted the residents stated their trays were coming out at a closer time with their lunch mates. 1. Observation was conducted on 09/27/21 from 8:15 A.M. to 8:53 A.M. of the breakfast meal service within the secured unit. The meal consisted of cereal, eggs, toast, juice, milk, and other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-30 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 interview, staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure smoking breaks were provided for Residents #49 and #266. This affected two of three (Resident's #10, #49 and #266) resident's that smoked. The facility census is 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, major depressive disorder, and cirrhosis of liver. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 was cognitively intact and required assistance of two staff for transfers and one staff for other activities of daily living except for eating. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #266 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, dysarthria, and anarthria. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment revealed it was in progress. Interview and observation on 09/27/21 at 1:15 P.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-05-16 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to properly store resident food and maintain sanitary conditions in the nursing unit B refrigerator to prevent contamination and potential food borne illness. This had the potential to affect nine residents (Resident #81, #344, #50, #72, #53, #28, #294, #93 and #32) who resided on unit B. The facility census was 83. Findings include: Observation on 05/13/19 at 9:13 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #500 of nursing unit B refrigerator revealed in the freezer one short, dark colored strand of hair and a nickel sized brown, dried spill near the center of the floor of the freezer compartment. There was also a dried lighter brownish stain/spill along the left side of the bottom shelf, almost in the crease of the floor of the freezer and wall. The refrigerator had a medium sized plastic, clear bowl with a red top with an unidentifiable food in it. The bowl was not labeled or dated. Interview on 05/13/19 at 9:13 A.M. with DM #500 verified the above findings and stated housekeeping staff were responsible for keeping 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 · D2019-05-16 · 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 interview the facility failed to provide a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) and Notice to Medicare Provider Non-Coverage (NOMNC) as required to Resident #33's responsible party/guardian. This affected one resident (Resident #33) of three residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. Findings include Review of the SNFABN form for Resident #33 revealed beginning on 03/30/19 the resident would have to pay out of pocket for care if she did not have other insurance that might cover the cost. A note printed on the bottom of the SNFABN revealed Social Service Designee (SSD) #510 attempted to call Resident #33's guardian on 03/29/19. After she was unable to contact the guardian, the SSD then contacted the house manager at the group home the resident resided in prior to admission. SSD #510 requested the house manager contact the guardian. Review of the beneficiary NOMNC for Resident #33 revealed skilled services would end on 04/03/19. A similar note dated 03/29/19 printed at the bottom of the NOMNC indicated the SSD requested the same…
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 · D2019-05-16 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop a plan of care for Resident #42 related to hemodialysis, for Resident #69 related to hospice and for Resident #91 related to a urinary tract infection. This affected one resident (Resident #42) of one resident reviewed for hemodialysis, one resident (Resident #69) of two residents reviewed for hospice services and one resident (Resident #91) of five residents reviewed for urinary tract infections and catheter care. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end-stage renal disease, dementia, and renal dialysis dependence. The resident had orders dated 02/26/19 for assessments pre and post dialysis every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. No order was present identifying the time of the procedure or the nurse's role in arranging scheduling and transportation. There was no care plan developed related to the resident's need for dialysis care or the facility staff's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-05-16 · 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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment (nasal cannulas) were stored when not in use in a manner to prevent the potential spread of infection. This affected one resident (Resident #20) of one resident reviewed for oxygen use. The facility identified 15 resident with with oxygen. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, shortness of breath, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired, needed extensive assistance with transfers, was frequently incontinent of urine, and used oxygen. Resident #20 had a physician order dated 03/10/19 for oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula continuously to maintain a pulse oximeter of 92 percent for shortness of breath. On 05/13/19 at 8:57 A.M., an observation revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA ASSETS HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/17/2022 |
| RA INVESTMENT OH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 35% | since 05/17/2022 |
| RA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 53% | since 05/17/2022 |
| GEWIRTZ, JONATHAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 13% | since 05/17/2022 |
| MARCUM, DYLON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/17/2022 |
| NEIL BAY MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/17/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
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 365115. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-02-08, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.