Laurels Of Worthington, The
1030 High St, Worthington, OH 43085 · For profit - Corporation · 95 certified beds · (614) 885-0408 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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 a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 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 | 2.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.0% | 30.1% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.7% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.6% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.3% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.4% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 6.3% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.3% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
50.6% 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 58 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.4% 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 48 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.6%CMS range 38.6–62.9 | 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 7.3–15.8 | 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 | 60.4% | 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 | 58.3% | 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 | 64.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.5% | 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 | 97.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.0% | 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 | 1.5% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.2–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 95 beds and averages 88.2 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.41 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.07 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-17 · 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 record review, observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when caring for residents with Covid 19 infection. This affected five (Residents #13. #24, #40, #42 and #16) residents. The census was 90. Findings include:1. During an observation on 07/17/25 at 9:20 AM, Resident #13's room had two signs on the door, one for Enhance Barrier Precautions and one for Contact Isolation Precautions. There were four occupants in the room, Residents #13, #34, #40 and #42 . Residents #34, #40 and #42 were exposed to Resident #13, who was positive for Covid #19. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #104 was taking care of Resident #40 and was wearing only a surgical mask, no other PPE. During an interview on 07/17/25 at 9:50 A.M., CNA #104 confirmed Resident #13 was the only resident with Covid 19 in his room. She should have been wearing a gown, face mask, N-95 and gloves due to the positive resident and the others were exposed to Covid 19. During an interview on 07/17/25 at 9:56 A.M., Infection Control…
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 · E2024-11-04 · tag F0569 — patternNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was verification of receipt for spenddown notifications and a plan to spenddown the accounts for four residents who received Medicaid Benefits. This affected four residents (#25, #43, #48, and #58) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 07/04/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Review of Resident #48's payer information revealed her primary payor source was Medicaid. Review of Resident #48's resident trust fund authorization revealed the responsible party was to receive statements. Review of Resident #48's quarterly statement dated 03/31/24 revealed her closing balance was $3,423.92. Review of a letter dated 04/19/24 revealed it was notification that Resident #48's account exceeded the Medicaid limit. There was no evidence this was sent to or acknowledged by the responsible party. Review of Resident #48's quarterly statement dated 06/30/24 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for 27 residents (#7, #14, #17, #25, #28, #29, #30, #33, #35, #40, #43, #45, #46, #48, #51, #53, #57, #67, #70, #71, #72, #75, #78, #83, #241, #242, and #291) on the memory care unit when they served meals on trays in the dining room. This affected 27 residents of 49 residents on the memory care unit. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Observation on 10/28/24 at 12:15 P.M. of the lunch meal revealed all residents in the dining room had been served their meals on trays. Interview on 10/28/24 at 12:17 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #152 verified the residents were served meals on trays in the dining room. She reported it helped residents recognize what food was theirs. Interview on 10/31/24 at 12:50 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified keeping food on trays did not keep residents from taking food of each other's trays. The facility had no relevant policy.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 observations, family and staff interview, review of facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents who required assistance from staff with activities of daily living were provided adequate and timely assistance with nail care and eating. This affected four residents (#11, #30, #55, and #61) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/29/23 with diagnoses including dementia, peripheral vascular disease, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and vision. Resident #30 required set up or clean up assistance from staff for personal hygiene and eating. Review of Resident #30's plan of care dated 09/19/24 revealed he had a functional ability deficit and required assistance with self-care related to impaired cognition,…
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 · E2024-11-04 · 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 observations, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities were offered and provided for Residents #11, #30, #55, and #72. This affected four residents (#11, #30, #55, and #72) of six residents reviewed for activities. The facility census as 91. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/29/23 with diagnoses including dementia, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, depression, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and vision. Review of Resident #30's plan of care dated 11/14/23 revealed he enjoyed playing spades, biz wiz, conversing about the news, listening to music therapy, listening to daily chronicles, audiobooks, and going outdoor when the weather was nice. Interventions included offering outdoor activities when the weather was appropriate, providing an…
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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to call lights. This affected two (#5 and #58) of two residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 91. Findings included: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 05/13/23. Diagnoses included congestive heart failure, congestive heart failure, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the Minimum Date Set quarterly assessment, dated 08/20/24, revealed Resident #5 had a some cognitive impairment. Resident #5 was setup and clean up for meals; supervision and touching for oral care, toileting, bathing; and independent dressing with lower and upper body, placing shoes on and off, and personal hygiene. Review of plan of care dated 08/20/24 revealed Resident #5 was deaf and hard to hear you. Resident #5 was also incontinent and required every two hours incontinence care. Observation on 10/31/24 at 2:00 P.M., with Resident #5 who was lying in bed, and the call light was not in reach. The call light was observed wrapped around the bed post, 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 before2024-11-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#42) guardian was notified of a change in condition and new medication order. This affected one (Resident #42) of 21 residents reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an initial admission date of 01/11/24 with the diagnoses including memory deficit following cerebral infarct. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #42 had a moderate cognitive deficit. Review of the Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note dated 10/10/24 revealed Resident #42 complained of pain with urination for two days. The NP ordered a complete blood count (CBC), urinalysis and culture and sensitivity (UA/C&S) and if leukocytes were positive she would be treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of the UA/C&S revealed the resident's urine was cloudy, was positive 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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, family and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to arrange podiatry services for Resident #61. This affected one (#61) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of Resident #61's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/28/24 with diagnoses including dementia, chronic kidney disease, schizoaffective disorder, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness. Review of Resident #61's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was rarely or never understood. Review of Resident #61's physician order dated 06/26/24 revealed an order for podiatry evaluation and treatment as indicated. Review of Resident #61's medical record revealed it was absent for ancillary consents or evidence of podiatry consult. Interview on 10/28/24 at 2:01 P.M. with Resident #61's family revealed he had wanted Resident #61 to be seen by the podiatrist. He reported his toenails were long enough that it…
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 · D2024-11-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents with contractures were provided splints and/or palm protectors to prevent worsening of contractures. This affected two (#1 and #55) of two residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an initial admission date of 04/28/22 with the latest readmission of 10/28/23. Diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with right sided hemiplegia, dysarthria, aphasia, vascular dementia, chronic kidney disease, adult failure to thrive, atopic and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the plan of care dated 10/26/23 revealed Resident #1 had a functional ability deficit and required assistance with self care/mobility related to effects of CVA, dementia, non-ambulatory, right sided weakness, right sided neglect, poor trunk control confusion, bowel and bladder incontinence and can get agitated during care giving. Interventions…
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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, medical record,review and policy review, the faciliy failed to have fall interventions in place for a resident who was at risk for falls. This affected one (63) of one resident reviewed for fall interventions. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #63 revealed an admission date 05/11/23. Diagnoses included cerebral aneurysm, dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and epilepsy. Review of Quarterly Minimum Data Set date 07/22/24 revealed Resident #63 revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #63 required substantial maximal assistance oral care, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, dressing upper and lower body, oral care, and bathing. Review of plan of care dated 10/22/24 revealed Resident #63 was at risk for risk for falls related to confusion, dementia, with poor safety awareness, non-ambulatory, antidepressant medication, restlessness, servers' impulsiveness, and lowers to herself to the floor on purpose. Interventions included administer meds, anticipate all needs, dose…
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 21 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-04 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of policies, the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for a resident dependent on staff for care. This affected one (#72) of one resident reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of medical record revealed Resident #72 was admit date [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, overactive bladder, and major depressive disorder. Review of Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #72 indicated th resident was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #72 required dependent during meals, oral care, toileting hygiene, bathing, putting on and off shoes, and personal hygiene. Review of plan of care dated 10/16/24 revealed Resident #72 was at risk for impaired skin integrity/pressure injury related to non-ambulatory, frequent bowel and bladder incontinence, confusion to skin needs, poor bed mobility, performance, and weight loss. Interventions included conduct weekly head to toe skin…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-04 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had colostomy supplies available for self care. This affected one (#147) of one resident reviewed for colostomy care. The faciliy census was 91. Findings include: Review of Resident #147's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/17/24, with diagnoses including: surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system, acute gastric ulcer with hemorrhage, iron deficiency anemia secondary to blood loss (chronic), chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, hypertension (HTN), primary pulmonary hypertension, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFIB), atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris without angina, ischemic cardiomyopathy, chronic kidney disease stage 3, primary general osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, disorders of bone density and structure multiple sites, attention to colostomy, personal history of malignant neoplasm, and rectal prolapse. Review of the care plan for Resident #172 revealed At risk 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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure daily weights were obtained and post dialysis communication forms were returned to the facility following dialysis. This affected one (#18) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an initial admission date of 04/04/24, with the diagnoses including: surgical aftercare following surgery on the skin and subcutaneous tissue, peripheral venous insufficiency, end stage renal failure (ESRD), dependence on renal dialysis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, anemia, polyneuropathy, hyperparathyroidism, and depressive disorder. Review of the plan of care dated 04/04/24 revealed the resident was at risk for hypovolemia related to dialysis related to ESRD and calls dialysis center and cancels appointments two to three times a month. Inventions included check bruit/thrill per facility policy, notify physician if not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-04 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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, resident interview, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care that accounts for the resident's experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or lessen the severity of triggers that lead to retraumatization for the resident. This affected one (#41) of one resident reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility census was 91. Finding include: Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/25/24, with diagnoses including: post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), type two diabetes mellitus (DM), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), focal traumatic brain injury without loss of consciousness, history of falling, diabetic foot ulcer, non-pressure chronic ulcer of right heel and midfoot with necrosis of muscle, venous insufficiency, chronic kidney disease (CKD), obesity, hyperlipidemia, anemia, hypothyroidism, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed…
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 · D2024-11-04 · 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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure monitoring for adverse reactions/side effects related to the use of anticoagulants, diuretics, and/or insulin. This affected two (#36 and #82) of two residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #36's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/13/20, with diagnoses including: Cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hemiplegia/hemiparesis right dominant side, dysphagia, aortic stenosis, hypertension (HTN), atrial fibrillation (AFIB), type two diabetes mellitus (DM), congestive heart failure (CHF), hyperlipidemia, contracture left ankle, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), moderate intellectual disabilities, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), recurrent depressive disorder, and contracture of right ankle/foot. Review of the monthly physician's orders for Resident #36 dated October 2024 revealed orders for: apixaban tablet five milligrams (mg), give one tablet by mouth two times a day for CVA; aspirin (ASA) tablet, chewable, 81 mg, give…
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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor for potential side effects of antipsychotic medication use. This affected two (#1 and #36) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 91. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an initial admission date of 04/28/22, with the latest readmission of 10/28/23, with the diagnoses including: cerebrovascular accident with right sided hemiplegia, dysarthria, aphasia, dysphagia, vascular dementia, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, anemia, depression, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, adult failure to thrive, atopic dermatitis and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the resident's plan of care dated 07/01/24 revealed the resident was at risk for adverse reactions and side effects related to psychotropic medication used for schizoaffective disorder and antidepressant used for depression. Interventions included administer antidepressant…
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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain a resident's laboratory tests as physician ordered. This affected one (#18) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 91. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an initial admission date of 04/04/24, with the diagnoses including but not limited to surgical aftercare following surgery on the skin and subcutaneous tissue, peripheral venous insufficiency, end stage renal failure, dependence on renal dialysis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, anemia, polyneuropathy, hyperparathyroidism, and depressive disorder. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive deficit. The assessment indicated the resident received dialysis. Review of the resident's monthly physician orders for October 2024 identified an order dated 04/05/24 Albumin and Pre-albumin level every other week. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. Three medication errors out of 30 opportunities for error resulted in a medication error rate of ten percent. This affected two (Residents #38 and #66) of five residents observed for medication administration. The census was 92. Findings include: 1. Review of physician orders revealed Resident #38 had Diclofenac sodium external gel (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory) one percent topical, apply 0.5 grams to bilateral knees two times a day for pain. During observation of medication pass for Resident #38 on 05/30/24 at 8:10 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #100 revealed there was no Diclofenac sodium external gel available in the medication cart for Resident #38. During an interview on 05/30/24 at 11:07 A.M., LPN #100 confirmed the resident did not receive his Diclofenac sodium external gel to his knees as the medication was not available. 2. Resident #66 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-30 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure timed released medications were not crushed, resulting in a significant medication error. This affected one (Resident #66) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The census was 92. Findings include: Resident #66 had physician orders for Divalproex sodium tablet delayed release tablets (anti-seizure medication used as a mood stabilizer) 125 milligrams (mg), give three tablets by mouth twice daily for psychosis and enteric coated aspirin, delayed release 81 mg daily for heart health. During observation of medication pass for Resident #66 on 05/30/24 at 8:35 A.M., LPN #100 crushed the Divalproex sodium delayed release tablets, and the Aspirin EC pill and administered the medication to the resident. During an interview on 05/30/24 at 8:48 A.M. LPN #100 stated she crushes medications which are allowed to be crushed. LPN #100 stated she knows what medications can be crushed or it is written on 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 · F2022-03-17 · 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 record review, observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store/date food appropriately and failed to serve food in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 88 of 89 residents who eat food from the kitchen (Resident #4 eats no food by mouth). The facility census was 89. Findings include: 1. Observations of the dry storage room in the facility's kitchen on 03/14/22 between 8:14 A.M. to 8:35 A.M. revealed there were the following observations: six cans of sauerkraut with handwritten date of 07/13 (no year) on the top of each can, four cans of sauerkraut with handwritten date of 05/18 (no year) on the top of each can, one can of potatoes with the handwritten date of 07/16 (no year) on top of the can, and three cans of olives with the handwritten date of 08/30/21 on top of each can. Each of the three olive cans also had the expiration date of 02/14/22 on them. Interview with Dietary Manager #353 on 03/16/22 at 11:25 A.M. confirmed she contacted the food supplier. Food supplier confirmed there should have been an expiration date…
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 · E2022-03-17 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were without unneeded restrictive devices/physical restraints. This affected six (Residents #7, #25, #27, #29, #44, and #65) of nine residents reviewed for physical restraints. The facility census was 89. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/03/22, revealed Resident #7 had no behaviors exhibited, not deemed a wanderer, and had a wanderguard placed. Review of the current physician orders dated 03/2022, revealed Resident #7 had an order for a wanderguard for wandering. Review of the Nursing Comprehensive Evaluation (section J), dated 12/27/21, revealed Resident #7 had a total score of eight, which indicated she was not a risk for elopement. 2. Review of Resident #25's medical record revealed Resident #25 was admitted to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely notify the resident's physician and responsible party of changes in a resident's status. This affected one (#76) of five residents reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 89. Findings include: Review of Resident #76 's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the progress notes dated 03/09/22 revealed Resident #76 was seen by Nurse Practitioner #500 and noted to have two pitting edema in the lower extremities. The plan would be to increase the Lasix (diuretic medication) 40 milligrams (mg) to twice daily from the current once daily dose of Lasix 40 mg. Resident #76 would now be receiving a total of 80 mg of Lasix daily. Review of the medical record revealed it was silent to the responsible party being notified of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-17 · 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, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to timely provide hygiene care for a resident who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). This affected one (Resident #13) of six residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility identified 87 residents who required assistance with one or more ADLs. The facility census was 89. Findings include: Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included senile degeneration of the brain, diabetes type II, glaucoma, and history of transient ischemic attack. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 had cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance of one person for personal hygiene and one person assist for bathing. Review of the care plan dated 01/22/22 revealed Resident #13 had self care performance deficit related to ADL. Resident #13 required assistance with ADLs and mobility…
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 · D2022-03-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, medical record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure geri-sleeves (a cloth covering used to help protect thin skin from tears, abrasions, and light bruising) were in place for three (#29, 36, and #59) of seven residents identified as using geri sleeves. The facility census was 89. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #29's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cerebral infarction, and muscle wasting. Review of the physician's orders dated 09/10/20 revealed Resident #29 has an order for geri-sleeves daily. Review of Resident #29's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the staff were initialing the treatment administration record daily indicating geri-sleeves were in place daily. The TAR and medical record were reviewed and silent to Resident #29 refusing to wear the geri sleeves. Observation of Resident #29 on 03/15/22 at 12:05 P.M. in the dining room,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-17 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, revealed the facility failed to ensure Resident #53 and #85 received non-pharmacological interventions for pain prior to administering as needed narcotic pain medication. This affected two (#53 and #85) of two residents reviewed for pain management. The facility identified 26 residents on a pain management program. The facility census was 89. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 08/19/22. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stage four, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the pain management plan of care updated 11/16/21 for Resident #53 revealed no interventions for non-pharmacological interventions. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was alert and oriented. Resident #53 had frequent pain rated as six on a zero to ten scale (zero indicated no pain and ten was the most…
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 · D2022-03-17 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer medication as physician ordered to one (#76) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. This had the potential to affect all 89 residents at the facility who were identified to receive medications from the facility staff. Findings include: Review of Resident #76's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #76's care plan dated 06/19/20 revealed the resident had a care plan in place for cardiac complications related to multiple cardiovascular diseases hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and heart failure. Interventions included to administer medications per order. Review of the progress notes dated 03/09/22 revealed Resident #76 was seen by Nurse Practitioner #500 and noted to have two pitting edema in the lower…
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 · D2022-03-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the proper food texture to a resident. This affected one (Resident #62) of six residents reviewed for food/nutrition. The facility identified 29 residents who receive a mechanically altered diet. The facility census was 89. Findings include: Review of Resident #62's medical record revealed Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dysphagia and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/24/22, revealed Resident #62 had a severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #62's physician orders, dated 03/10/22, revealed a dietary order for mechanical soft diet texture with pureed fruits and vegetables. Observations on 03/16/22 from 11:49 A.M. to 11:51 A.M. revealed the kitchen staff were preparing Resident #62's lunch meal. The tray had a grilled cheese (which was cut into very small pieces by a knife), pureed green beans, and cubed/cooked potatoes. This was placed onto the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-08-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised to reflect the current status and interventions for residents. This affected four (Residents #13, #28, #30 and #34) of 22 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 07/20/15. Diagnoses included nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, tracheostomy status, cerebral infarction, chronic respirator failure with hypoxia, pneumonia, anemia, diabetes, quadriplegia, ischemic cardiomyopathy and bacteremia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #13 to have a severe cognitive deficit. She was also assessed to have disorganized thinking and periods of inattention. Review of Resident #13's plan of care dated 06/05/19, revealed the resident to be documented as comatose throughout the care plan. Interview on 08/21/19 at 11:55 A.M. with the Director…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation related to an indwelling urinary catheter. This affected one (Resident #38) of one resident reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident 338 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cervical-four spinal injury, tetraplegia, urinary tract infections, acute cystitis, anxiety, neurogenic bladder, hyponatremia, insomnia and muscle spasms. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #38 had a slight cognitive deficit. He was also assessed to required extensive to total assistance from staff for his daily care. He was assessed to have an indwelling urinary catheter and his continence could not be rated due to the indwelling catheter. Review of the current physician's orders identified an order for a 16 French urinary indwelling catheter, dated 07/03/19. No orders were noted 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 · D2019-08-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication carts were free of expired medications. This affected two medication storage carts and one medication storage room. The facility census was 92. Findings include: On 08/22/19 at 8:48 A.M. one unopened bottle of Fer-in-Sol liquid iron supplement, located in the East One medication cart, was observed to have an expiration date of 09/01/18. A bottle of Pro-Stat sugar free liquid protein was observed with an expiration date of 03/13/19 and one bottle of Uti-Stat urinary tract protection complex with an expiration date of July 2019. Interview on 08/22/19 at 8:58 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #144, confirmed the three mediations were expired. She also confirmed Resident #50 received the pro-stat and Resident #80 received the Uti-Stat complex. Observation on 08/22/19 at 9:00 A.M. of the South medication cart revealed one bottle of Uti-Stat urinary tract protection complex with an expiration date of July 2019. Interview on 08/22/19 at 9:10 A.M. with LPN #101 confirmed the medication was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-22 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure an occupational therapy recommendation for restorative care was provided for a resident. This affected one (Resident #34) of two residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility identified 30 residents receiving rehabilitative services. Record review for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 05/05/14. Medical diagnoses included Parkinson's Disease, seizure disorder, and traumatic brain injury. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 was rarely or never understood. Her functional status was extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use and eating was total dependence. Review of discharge records from Occupational Therapy (OT) dated 06/16/19 revealed recommendations were for splints to bilateral upper extremities (arms) and passive range of motion to protect joint integrity. PROM to BUE was to be completed 15 repetitions one time a day and the splint was to be…
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 CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE — 81 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 80 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 80; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| QAZI, MOHAMMAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2016 |
| KHAN, ANIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| STOBB, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| CONLEY, LUCAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/19/2023 |
| JAHAN, ISHRAT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $548K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365256. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-04, 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.