Arbors At Woodsfield
37930 Airport Road, Woodsfield, OH 43793 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 85 certified beds · (740) 472-1678 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565, F0568)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (36) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.6% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 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 | 1.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.2% | 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 | 98.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.3% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.0% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.87 | 1.73 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.50 | 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.
53.0% 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 48 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 29 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 45% 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 | 53.0%CMS range 40.0–65.8 | 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 | 11.2%CMS range 7.0–16.8 | 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 | 51.7% | 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 | 65.5% | 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 | 31.0% | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.8% | 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 | 8.5%CMS range 4.5–14.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 85 beds and averages 51.1 residents a day — about 60% occupied, or roughly 34 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.23 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.95 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
36 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2022-05-29 · 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, record review, review of medical nutrition therapy recommendations, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to timely address significant weight loss and/or communicate weight loss recommendations to appropriate staff. Actual Harm occurred on 05/25/22 when Resident #41 was assessed to have a 11.2 pound/11.07% severe weight loss in less than thirty days following her admission on [DATE]. During this time period, the facility failed to implement timely comprehensive, individualized and effective interventions to prevent the weight loss, promote weight gain, communicate dietary recommendations to the physician and ensure an ordered dietary supplement was being consumed by the resident. This affected three residents (#20, #32 and #41) of six residents reviewed for nutrition/weight loss. The facility identified four residents with significant weight loss. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-26 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents with reclining wheelchairs were assessed for possible restraint use. This affected two (Resident #12 and #34) of two residents reviewed for possible restraint use. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 01/05/21 with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease with hemodialysis, diabetes mellitus and atrial fibrillation. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #12 revealed on 10/17/24 that while resident is up in tilt-in-space wheel chair (wheelchair which can recline for comfort and positioning) to tilt resident back to 30-40 degrees every hour for 5-20 minutes as tolerates to relieve pressure off coccyx and sacrum. No evidence was found in the medical record to determine when the tilt-in-space wheelchair was initiated and no evidence of an assessment to determine if the tilt and space wheelchair was a restraint. Observation of Resident #12 on 06/23/25 at 10:44 A.M. revealed the resident was reclined in a tilt-in-space…
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 · D2025-06-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were accurate. This affected two residents (Resident #9 and #48) of 12 residents reviewed for accurate assessment. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/26/13 with diagnoses including cerebral palsy, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, allergic rhinitis, excoriation (skin picking) disorder, irritant contact dermatitis, and candidiasis of the skin. Review of the physician orders revealed to administer hydroxyzine (Vistaril, an anti-histamine medication that is sometimes prescribed to treat anxiety) 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth every eight hours as needed for itching for 90 days written 04/24/25. Further review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed no evidence of the resident having received an anti-anxiety medication from 05/01/25 through 05/06/25. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the MDS reflected 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 · D2025-06-26 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents had appropriate indication for use of medications and did not have duplicate medication therapy without appropriate justification. This affected one (Resident #46) of five residents reviewed for medication use. Findings include: Review of Resident #46's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/23/25 with diagnoses that included traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic hydrocephalus. No evidence of any gastro-esophageal reflux disorder (GERD) was identified. Review of the physician's orders revealed the current use of famotidine (medication for treatment of GERD) 20 milligrams (mg) twice daily and protonix (medication for treatment of GERD) 20 mg daily. Further review of the medical record including physician's progress notes and hospital records identified no current or prior diagnosis of GERD or justification for the duplicate medication therapy. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 06/24/25 at 2:35 P.M. verified Resident #46 did not have a diagnosis of GERD and received duplicate medication…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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 observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to store and prepare foods in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents residing in the facility. Findings included: Observations on 04/08/24 between 9:15 A.M. and 9:18 A.M. revealed an eight-quart container of rice crispies in the dry storage room with a use by date of 03/27/24, two dozen hard-boiled eggs in the walk-in refrigerator with an expiration date of 03/10/24, half a white onion with a use by date of 04/04/24, a whole onion with a use by date of 04/06/24, a half a gallon of parmesan cheese with an expiration date of 03/27/24, and a bag of shredded cheddar cheese with an expiration date of 03/27/24. Interview on 04/08/24 at 9:20 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #430 confirmed the above findings. Additional observations of the kitchen on 04/08/24 at 9:26 A.M. revealed food splashes on the prep area walls, food debris and crumbs on the shelving for dishes and pans as well as on the floor below the beverage area, and sticky grime throughout the stainless-steel shelving in 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 · E2024-04-11 · 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all residents received a dignified dining experience when residents seated at a table were not served their meals at the same time. This affected four residents (#2, #8, #47, and #161) of 20 residents observed in the dining room. The facility census was 55. Findings included: Observation on 04/08/24 at 11:09 A.M. revealed Residents #2, #8, #47, and #161 were seated at a table together. Throughout the dining process, the following was observed: -11:09 A.M. Resident #8 received her meal, staff then began to serve other tables. -11:19 A.M. Resident #47 received a bowl of soup. -11:22 A.M. Resident #2 received her tray. -11:26 A.M. Resident #161 received her tray. Interview on 04/08/24 at 11:30 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #135 revealed each table should be served at a time. RN #135 confirmed the above findings. Interview on 04/11/24 at 5:23 P.M. with Resident #47 revealed a lot of times, the residents at lunch tables are not served at the same time. Resident #47 stated it is frustrating and upsetting to be seated at a…
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 · E2024-04-11 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 3. Record review revealed Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including rhabdomyolysis, type II diabetes, acute kidney failure, and major depressive disorder. Review of MDS completed on 01/24/24 revealed Resident #20 had moderately impaired cognition. Record review revealed no evidence a baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours of admission or that a copy was given to Resident #20. Interview on 04/10/24 at 2:29 P.M. with Social Services Director (SSD) #126 revealed care conferences should be completed upon admission, annually, quarterly, and for significant changes. SSD #126 stated after a resident admits, the timing of the care conference depends on family availability but most of the time she meets with the resident to give baseline care plans if they want to have a copy. SSD #126 stated care conferences could be located in the assessment tab in PointClickCare. Request for baseline care plan was made to Administrator on 04/11/24 at 11:53 A.M. with no response. 4. Record…
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 · E2024-04-11 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, review of menus, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable. This affected four residents (#37, #49, #58 and #263) of six residents reviewed for food concerns and one additional resident (Resident #36). Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed diagnoses including heart failure and stage three chronic kidney disease. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #58 was cognitively intact and able to make herself understood. On 04/08/24 at 11:54 A.M., Resident #58's lunch was served. Potatoes were dark brown on all sides except two potatoes which had one lighter brown side. Resident #58 tapped her fork on the potatoes and it made a sound as if scraping burned toast. Resident #58 reported the potatoes were hard. As Resident #58 attempted to get one of the potatoes on a fork it and another potato left the plate and landed on the over the bed table. Resident #58 reported the green beans…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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 record review and interviews, facility failed to conduct care conferences with residents in conjunction with minimum data set (MDS) assessments. This affected two residents (#24 and #49) of three residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 55. Findings included: 1. Record review revealed Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of a quarterly MDS revealed Resident #24 had mildly impaired cognition. Record review revealed Resident #24 had a discharge planning meeting with the social worker on 05/24/23, a care conference on 06/02/23, 09/20/23, 11/27/23, and a letter inviting them to a care conference on 01/24/24 but no record of the care conference being completed. Interview on 04/08/24 at 4:08 P.M. with Resident #24 revealed they had not had a care conference or been able to make decisions regarding treatment. Interview on 04/11/24 at 9:50 A.M. with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure recommendations for restorative ambulation programs were implemented to maintain a resident's ambulatory status. This affected one resident (#37) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings include: During an interview on 04/09/24 at 9:03 A.M., Resident #37 stated she used to ambulate with therapy. However, she had not received assistance with walking for weeks and felt she was getting weaker. Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed diagnoses including degenerative disease of the nervous system, peripheral vascular disease, malignant neoplasm of the right breast, type two diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, osteoporosis, macular degeneration, abnormalities of gait and mobility, difficulty walking and generalized muscle weakness. A Physical Therapy (PT) evaluation dated 11/02/23 indicated Resident #37 was referred to PT due to new onset of falls/fall risk, decrease in functional mobility, functional…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide oral care for a resident who is dependent on staff for personal care. This affected one resident (#46) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 55. Findings included: Record review revealed Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, type II diabetes, panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, and fibromyalgia. Review of a quarterly minimum data set (MDS) completed on 01/17/24 revealed Resident #46 was dependent on staff for completing all activities of daily living. Review of a care plan dated 10/23/23 revealed Resident #46 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and a history of falls. Goals included residents ADL needs would be met through the next review with interventions including two person assist for personal hygiene, encouraging participation in daily 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.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 interventions to prevent pressure ulcers were in place per orders. This affected one resident (#39) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 55. Findings included: Record review revealed Resident #39 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, type II diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and dementia. Review of orders revealed Resident #39 had orders in place for an alternating air mattress (01/08/24) and zero gravity boots to bilateral feet while in bed (starting on 02/01/23 and discontinued on 04/08/24). Review of care plan dated 12/31/23 revealed Resident #39 is at risk for impaired skin integrity related to confined to a bed all or most of the time, dementia, diabetes, incontinent of bladder, incontinent of bowel, needs assistance with activities of daily living, palliative care, peripheral vascular disease diagnosis, and skin break…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement fall prevention interventions for a resident with a history of falls. This affected one resident (#27) of three residents reviewed for accidents. Findings include: Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included a stroke with hemiplegia (paralysis) and hemiparesis (weakness) affecting her left non-dominant side, unspecified convulsions, Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, severe intellectual disabilities, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on her feet, and difficulty walking. Review of Resident #27's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognition was severely impaired. She had a functional limitation in her range of motion on one side of her upper and lower extremity. She had one fall since the prior assessment that was without injury. Review of Resident #27's plan of care revealed she had a 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 · Dcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to prepare pureed foods to meet the needs of residents requiring a pureed diet. This affected two residents (#5 and #19) of two residents who received a pureed diet. The facility census was 55. Findings included: Observation on 04/10/24 at 9:15 A.M. revealed [NAME] #420 washed her hands prior to beginning pureed foods. The first pureed food item to be prepared was a vegetable salad with Italian dressing. [NAME] #420 began by adding 12 ounces of vegetables with dressing already mixed in to the Robocoup machine. [NAME] #420 ran the machine for approximately 30 seconds, then paused to scrape the sides of the machine before continuing to blend again. She repeated this process 10 times. [NAME] #420 stated the food was not getting to the appropriate pureed texture and asked Dietary Manager (DM) #430 what to do; DM #430 stated she did not know what to do. [NAME] #420 stopped pureeing the mixture at 9:27 A.M. to taste, but said it was not ready to serve yet. She started to puree the mixture again for approximately 30 seconds, then…
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 · D2024-04-11 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, review of a food preference form, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received food according to assessed food preferences/dislikes. This affected one resident (#58) of 24 residents reviewed for food/nutrition. Findings include: During an interview on 04/08/24 at 11:50 A.M., Resident #58 reported she did not like the facility's scrambled eggs so the facility generally prepared and served her fried eggs. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed diagnoses including morbid obesity, anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. A care plan initiated 03/22/24 indicated Resident #58 was at risk for altered nutritional status related to a baseline care plan indicating obesity and medication diagnoses that included hyperlipidemia, depression, vitamin D deficiency, heart failure, and stage three chronic kidney disease. Interventions included providing meals/fluids based on resident food preferences and updating/honoring resident's food preferences on the tray ticket. On 04/09/24 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #58 was observed in bed with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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, review of facility infection reports, review of inservice records, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were not used unless criteria was met for the treatment of urinary tract infections. This affected one resident (#11) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included neurogenic disorder withe Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease, psychotic disorder with delusions, anxiety disorder and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had clear speech and was usually able to make herself understood. Her cognition was moderately impaired. Review of Resident #11's progress notes revealed the resident was straight catheterized on 03/07/24 at 5:05 A.M. for a urinalysis. Preliminary urine results were received on 03/07/24 at 10:33 P.M. and showed…
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 · E2022-05-29 · 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
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents had a monthly resident council meeting and failed to ensure adequate and timely responses to residents' concerns. This affected 13 residents (#1, #4, #5, #9, #14, #21, #23, #31, #32, #37, #44, #45 and #155) of 50 residents residing in the facility who had voiced concerns through resident council. Findings include: Review of facility resident council minutes for the past twelve months revealed there was no meeting conducted in April 2022. Review of facility resident council minutes, dated 08/09/21 revealed Residents #1, #4, #14, #21, #23, #32, #44 and #155 were informed that activities had started in that evening the month of August 2021. Review of facility resident council minutes, dated 01/21/22 revealed Residents #4, #9, #14, #44 and #155 were informed soup being added to the menu was discussed with the kitchen manager and administrator but there was no funding for soup. Review of facility resident council minutes, dated 03/13/22 revealed Residents #1, #4, #5, #9,…
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 · E2022-05-29 · tag F0568 — patternProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of resident personal fund account records, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure quarterly bank statements were provided to residents/responsible parties and available for review. This affected 30 resident (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #16, #18, #19, #20, #21, #23, #24, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #43, #44, #47 and #155) of 30 residents who had personal fund accounts maintained by the facility. The facility census was 50. Findings include: On 05/23/22 at 3:56 P.M. interview with Resident #1 revealed a concern she did not receive a quarterly statement related to her personal fund account. On 05/26/22 at 4:48 P.M. review of the resident personal account fund records with Business Office Manager #126 and Accounts Payable #152 revealed they had no written evidence of providing quarterly statements to all residents and/or the resident's responsible party for whom they managed personal fund accounts for. The staff members indicated they did receive quarterly resident trust fund (RTF) statements mailed…
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 · E2022-05-29 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized activity program to meet the total care needs and/or preferences of all residents. This affected four residents (#6, #7, #10 and #15) of four residents reviewed for activities and four additional residents (#4, #5, #9 and #23) present at a resident group meeting during the survey who voiced concerns related to activities. The facility census was 50. Findings include: 1. On 05/26/22 at 12:00 P.M. a group meeting interview with Resident #4, #5, #9, and #23 revealed they had previously requested more activities. All four residents revealed they have not received any response as to why they don't have more activities. During the meeting, the residents present reported there were not enough activities and they felt the facility needed to have more activities on the weekends. The residents indicated there were no activities on the weekends. On 05/26/22…
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 · E2022-05-29 · tag F0680 — patternEnsure the activities program is directed by a qualified professional.
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 employ a qualified activity professional as required. This affected four residents (#10, #15, #7 and #6) of four residents reviewed for activities and four additional residents (#4, #5, #9 and #23) present at a resident group meeting who voiced concerns regarding activities. The facility census was 50. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed the facility former Activity Director (AD), AD #204 who was qualified to function as facility activity director last date worked in the facility on 09/02/21. Activity Director (AD) #203 was hired 09/08/21 and worked until 04/19/22. However, AD #203 was not certified or eligible as a therapeutic recreation specialist or as an activities professional by a recognized accrediting body. AD #203 did not have two years of experience in a social or recreational program within the last five year nor was she a qualified occupational therapist or occupational therapy assistant. AD #203 had not completed a training course…
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 before2022-05-29 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of the facility menu, review of the National Dysphagia Diet Level documentation, completion of a test tray and interview the facility failed to ensure pureed diets were prepared at the appropriate consistency. This affected four residents (#8, #15, #26 and #39) of four residents identified to receive pureed diets. Findings include: Review of the Week-At-A-Glance menu for the dinner on 05/24/22 revealed the menu consisted of BBQ chicken thigh, capri vegetable blend, baked beans, cornbread and a blondie for dessert. On 05/24/22 at 4:02 P.M. observation of meal preparation revealed [NAME] #166 had already pureed the capri vegetables (zucchini, squash and carrots) and placed them in the steam table for service. [NAME] #166 was observed to place chicken thighs in the robo coupe (industrial blender) and pureed the chicken for the dinner meal. Once complete, [NAME] #166 placed the pureed chicken thighs into a metal pan and placed them in the steam table. [NAME] #166 verified the food was ready for service. Interview with [NAME] #166 at the time 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 · Ecited before2022-05-29 · 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 and interview the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a sanitary manner to prevent contamination. This affected four residents (#8, #15, #26 and #39) of four residents identified to receive pureed diets. Findings include: On 05/24/22 at 4:33 P.M. [NAME] #166 was observed to prepare puree rice for four residents, Resident #8, #15, #26 and #39 while wearing disposable gloves. Chicken broth was observed to be the liquid for puree and was in a plastic container near the robo coup. A metal tablespoon was observed submerged in the chicken broth. [NAME] #166 obtained a 1/3 cup plastic measuring cup with a handle and dipped the measuring cup into the broth and poured the chicken broth into the robo coupe with the rice. The cook returned the measuring cup to the container of broth and released the handle, causing the measuring cup to slide into the broth and become submerged along with the tablespoon. The cook continued to use the measuring cup by reaching into the broth, with her gloved hand to grab the handle until the rice was pureed to consistency. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-05-29 · 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, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to maintain adequate infection control practices, including the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of infection including COVID-19. This affected one resident (#248) who was in transmission based/droplet precautions and had the potential to affect 22 residents (#2, #3, #9, #11, #14, #15, #17, #19, #20, #21, #22, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #35, #39, #41, #44, and #151) who resided on A Hall. The facility census was 50. Findings include: Review of Resident #248's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/14/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, contact with and (suspected) exposure to COVID-19 and neoplasm of the breast. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order, dated 05/14/22 for a point of care (POC) COVID-19 test to be obtained five days after admission The resident also had an order for transmission based precautions for ten days and if no symptoms (of COVID-19), may discontinue (precautions) after…
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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #20's physician was notified timely following weight loss and the resident's family request for an appetite stimulant. This affected one resident (#20) of six residents reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/03/22 with diagnoses including unspecified injury of the head, metabolic encephalopathy, dementia without behavioral disturbance and rhabdomyolosis Review of the physician's orders revealed an order to obtain a monthly weight between the first and the tenth of each month. The resident also had an order (dated 04/01/22) for a regular diet with thin liquids. On 04/29/22 a new order for a sippy cup and divided plate with meals was ordered. Review of the resident's weights revealed the following: 03/05/22 194.8 pounds 03/08/22 188.6 pounds 03/15/22 173.8 pounds 03/29/22 162 pounds 04/02/22 166 pounds 05/06/22 153 pounds 05/09/22 160.9 pounds and 05/10/22 159 pounds No further weights 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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 closed record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #50 was provided a notice of the facility bed hold policy and ability to return to the facility upon admission and prior to a hospital transfer. This affected one resident (#50) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: Review of Resident #50's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 03/11/22 with diagnoses including COVID-19, malignant neoplasm of the uterus, malignant neoplasm of the brain, and malignant neoplasm of the lung. Review of the five day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/15/22 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance from two staff with bed mobility and extensive assistance of one staff member with dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. A discharge, return not anticipated MDS 3.0 assessment was completed on 03/29/22. Further review of the closed medical record revealed no evidence 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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to complete a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) screening for residents with newly added mental health diagnoses. This affected two residents (#44 and #17) of two residents reviewed for PASARR reviews. Finding include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 01/12/18. Review of Resident #44's most recent PASARR, dated 01/11/2018 revealed Resident #44 did not have any diagnoses of dementia, anxiety or delusions. Resident #44 had diagnoses added including dementia with Lewy bodies (dated 01/19/21), psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological conditions (dated 03/17/22), anxiety (dated 01/11/22) and major depressive disorder. Review of the plan of care, dated 01/15/2018 and revised 10/02/2019 revealed Resident #44 was at risk of exhibiting behaviors such as crying related to depression. Interventions included to administer medication as ordered and to monitor for behaviors. Review of the plan of care, dated…
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 · D2022-05-29 · 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, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to develop comprehensive and individual care plans for Resident #44 related to psychoactive medication, Resident #12 related to restorative nursing services and Resident #6 related to activities. This affected three residents (#6, #12 and #44) of 25 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 01/12/18. Resident #44 had diagnoses including dementia with Lewy bodies (dated 01/19/21), psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological conditions (dated 03/17/22), anxiety (dated 01/11/22) and major depressive disorder. Review of the plan of care, initiated on 01/12/18 and most recently revised on 01/12/22 revealed the resident had no care plan related to the use of an antipsychotic medication. Review of Resident #44's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/29/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating intact cognition for daily decision…
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 before2022-05-29 · 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 record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure comprehensive and individualized care plans were revised for Resident #19 related to advance directives and Resident #43 related to medication administration. This affected two residents (#19 and #43) of 25 residents reviewed for care planning. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including essential hypertension, unspecified mononeuropathy of the right and left lower limb, hypothyroidism, unspecified asthma, age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture, and glaucoma. On 09/20/19 the diagnosis of repeated falls was added, on 12/12/20 the diagnosis of generalized muscle weakness was added, on 02/01/22 the diagnoses of difficulty walking, not elsewhere classified was added, and on 03/26/22 encounter for palliative care was added. Record review revealed Resident 19 had advance directive…
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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
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 closed record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive discharge summary was completed for Resident #49 as required. This affected one resident (#49) of two residents reviewed for transfer/discharge. Findings include: Review of Resident #49's closed medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes with neuropathy, pressure ulcers to the left buttock, right buttock and sacrum, a deep tissue injury to the right heel, congestive heart failure and colostomy due to cancer. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/14/22 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility and total dependence of two staff members with transfers. The resident also required extensive assistance of one staff member with personal hygiene and total dependence of one staff member with toilet use. The resident had three Stage II pressure…
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 before2022-05-29 · 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, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #15, who required staff assistance for activities of daily living care received adequate and timely assistance with nail care to maintain proper hygiene. This affected one resident (#15) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings include: Review of Resident #15's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, pressure ulcer of sacral region Stage IV (full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone in the ulcer), type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, dementia, Alzheimer's, abnormal posture, heart failure and dysphagia. A 03/07/22 activity of daily living plan of care revealed an intervention (dated 03/15/22) to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Review of the 03/08/22…
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 · D2022-05-29 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to assess and timely notify the physician of an identified skin alteration for Resident #17. This affected one resident (#17) of one resident reviewed for non-pressure skin alterations. Findings include: Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/06/09 with a diagnosis including major depression. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order (dated 09/10/19) for showers every Tuesday and Friday during the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift and as needed and Nystatin cream twice a day for itching under the resident's breasts. Review of annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/01/22 revealed the resident was cognitively intact, independent for activities of daily living and required supervision and set up help for bathing. Review of the weekly skin assessments revealed the last skin assessment completed was dated 05/20/22 and no skin alterations were noted. On 05/23/22 at 1:16 P.M. interview with Resident #17 revealed she had an area on her upper back that itched and 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 · Dcited before2022-05-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, manufacturer guidelines review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer interventions were provided in accordance with manufacturer guidelines and to meet the needs of Resident #15. This affected one resident (#15) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified three residents who had pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of Resident #15's medical record revealed a 03/02/22 admission with diagnoses including osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, pressure ulcer of sacral region Stage IV (full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone in the ulcer), type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, abnormal posture, heart failure and dysphagia. Record review revealed Resident #15 was admitted to the facility with a Stage IV pressure ulcer to the sacrum measuring 8.52 centimeter (cm) in length by 6.56 cm width with 0.7 cm depth and 0.7 cm tunneling at 3:00. A plan of care…
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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to provide a restorative program as scheduled for Resident #12. This affected one resident (#12) of four residents reviewed for restorative programs. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an initial admission date of 06/11/21 and a re-admission date of 02/15/22. Resident #12 had diagnoses including cerebral infarction due to occlusion or stenosis of right middle cerebral artery, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affect left non-dominant side, facial weakness and difficulty walking. Review of Resident #12's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/22/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating an intact cognition for daily decision making abilities. Resident #12 was assessed to require extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility, transfers, mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment revealed Resident #12 had impairments to one upper and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-05-29 · 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, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #5, who had a history of falls in the facility had fall interventions in place as planned and education to prevent additional falls. This affected one resident (#5) of four residents reviewed for accidents. Findings include: Review of Resident #5's record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of degenerative disease of the nervous system, ataxia, type two diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, hyperlipidemia, generalized muscle weakness and repeated falls. Review of Resident #5's care plan, dated 02/06/22 revealed a goal for the resident to be free of falls. Interventions included to apply grip liner to the recliner and wheelchair and educate resident to leave lift chair in the seated position when not in use. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/18/22 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and 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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, meal ticket review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 received a dysphagia diet as ordered. This affected one resident (#32) of ten residents reviewed for dining. Findings include: Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed a 05/26/19 admission and a 12/03/20 readmission with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, anemia, hypothyroidism and diverticulosis. Review of the 05/14/21 potential for decline in nutritional status related to advanced age, significant weight loss and mechanically altered diet plan of care revealed a goal for the resident to maintain adequate nutritional status as evidenced by maintaining weight with no significant changes, no signs or symptoms of malnutrition and consuming at least 75 percent of at least three meals daily through review date. A 05/14/21 intervention included to weigh per facility policy, monitor, record, report to physician as needed signs and symptoms of malnutrition (emaciation, muscle wasting, significant weight loss of greater than five percent in one month, 7.5 percent in…
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 · D2022-05-29 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents received timely COVID-19 vaccination after receiving consent for administration. This affected one resident (#248) of one resident reviewed for transmission based precautions. Findings include: Review of Resident #248's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/14/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, diabetes and neoplasm of the breast. Review of the physician's orders, dated 05/14/22 revealed the resident was placed in transmission based precautions (TBP) for ten days (related to COVID-19) and if no symptoms, the facility may discontinue the precautions. The resident also had an order for a point of care test (COVID-19 rapid test) five days after admission. Review of the Vaccination Administration Record Informed Consent for Vaccination in Long Term Care Facility revealed I want to receive the following vaccination: COVID-19 Vaccination. The form was signed by the resident on 05/14/22. Review of the Immunization Documentation revealed no evidence 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.
“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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ARBORS AT OHIO — 16 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 | 5 of 5 | 2.6 | +2.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARK OPCO GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2015 |
| B&Y HEALTHCARE S CORP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| B&Y TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| CODY HEALTHCARE S CORP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| CRAIG FLASHNER 2007 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| NORCROSS, ROBERT | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| ROGERS, STACEY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| KIRK, KRISTINE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| FLASHNER, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| PERLSTEIN, YITZCHOK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| NOBLE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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 $426K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365496. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-26, 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.