Xenia Health And Rehab
126 Wilson Drive, Xenia, OH 45385 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 51 certified beds · (937) 376-2121 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0569)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 26% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.7% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 8.4% | 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 | 2.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.4% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.4% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.9% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.4% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.1% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 36.5% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
‡ 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.
52.3% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.0% 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 20 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 52.3%CMS range 38.5–62.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.4–15.2 | 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 | 55.0% | 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 | 45.0% | 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 | 40.0% | 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 | 97.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.0% | 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 | 9.1% | 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 5.5–14.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 51 beds and averages 31.0 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 20 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.70 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.30 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-03-07 · 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the fall investigation, review of witness statements, and review of the hospital records, the facility failed to ensure residents were safely transferred in a manner to prevent an avoidable major injury as care planned and per facility policy. This resulted in Actual Harm on 02/27/24 when State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #500 transferred Resident #28 from the bed to the wheelchair without assistance as required by Resident #28's plan of care resulting in Resident #28 sliding down in the front of the wheelchair and her left shoulder making contact with the wheelchair. Subsequently, Resident #28 was sent to the local hospital where she was diagnosed with a closed fracture of the left shoulder. This affected one (#28) of three residents reviewed for accident hazards. The facility identified one( #28) resident who required a mechanical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered resulting in two medication errors of 33 medication opportunities which resulted in a 6.06 percent (%) error rate. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident # 15 revealed admission date of 01/01/21 with diagnoses including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and depression.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15 dated 03/10/26 revealed the resident was cognitively impaired and was dependent upon staff assistance with activities of daily living.Review of the physician's orders for Resident #15 revealed orders dated 02/06/26 for Singulair 10 milligrams (mg) daily and calcium/vitamin D3 500mg/5 microgram (mcg) tablet every morning and at bedtime.Observation on 04/28/26 at 8:24 A.M. of medication administration for Resident #15 per Registered Nurse…
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 · F2025-07-31 · tag F0730 — widespreadObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) received 90-day and annual performance evaluations and CNAs received at least twelve hours of in-services annually. This affected three (CNA #32, CNA #36 and CNA #45) of the three CNAs reviewed for performance evaluations and annual in-services. The facility census was 34.1) Review of CNA #32's personnel file revealed CNA #32 was hired at the facility on 05/22/24. Further review of CNA #32's personnel file revealed CNA #32 did not have an annual performance evaluation from 05/22/24 to 07/30/25 and CNA #32 did not have any documented in-service education from 05/22/24 to 07/30/25. Interview with Regional Support #804 on 07/31/25 at 7:31 A.M. verified CNA #32 did not have an annual performance evaluation from 05/22/24 to 07/30/25 and CNA #32 did not have any documented in service education from 05/22/24 to 07/30/25. 2) Review of CNA #36's personnel file revealed CNA #36 was hired at the facility on 01/22/25. Further review of CNA #36's personnel file revealed CNA #36 did not have 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 · Fcited before2025-07-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food temperatures were maintained in a manner to prevent foodborne illness. This affected all 34 residents residing in the facility as the facility indicated all residents receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 34. Observation of the facility's kitchen on 07/29/25 at 7:30 A.M. revealed [NAME] #43 was serving food from the stove and placing the made plates on the food cart that was not insulated. [NAME] #43 took the temperature of the food items on the stove and again while on the food cart. The gravy was 128.3 degrees Fahrenheit, the boiled eggs were 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit, and the scrambled eggs were 87 degrees Fahrenheit. The gravy, boiled eggs and scrambled eggs were located on the stove. The pureed scrambled eggs were 102.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the pureed oatmeal was 127.1 degrees Fahrenheit, and the pureed biscuits and gravy were 94.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The pureed scrambled eggs, the pureed oatmeal and the pureed biscuits and gravy were located on the food cart. [NAME] #43…
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 · F2025-07-31 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director or his or her designee attended quarterly Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee meetings. This affected 34 out of 34 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 34. Review of the facility's QAA meeting sign in sheets from 09/18/24 to 02/18/25 revealed the Medical Director or their designee did not attend the QAA meetings held from 09/19/24 to 02/17/25. Interview with the Administrator on 07/31/25 at 1:38 P.M. verified the Medical Director or their designee did not attend the QAA meetings held from 09/19/24 to 02/17/25.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-07-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their tuberculosis control plan for tuberculosis testing of newly hired employees. This affected four (The Administrator, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #30, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #36 and CNA #41) out of eight newly hired employees reviewed for tuberculosis testing. This also affected 34 out of 34 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 34. 1) Review of the Administrator's personnel file revealed the Administrator was hired at the facility on 03/06/25. Further review of the Administrator's personnel file revealed the Administrator did not have a tuberculin skin test or other test to rule out TB completed upon hire. Interview with Regional Support #804 on 07/31/25 at 7:31 A.M. verified the facility had no documentation that the Administrator received a TB test or interferon gamma release assay test upon hire. 2) Review of the LPN #30's personnel file revealed LPN #30 was hired at the facility on 05/08/24. Further review of LPN #30's personnel file revealed LPN #30 did not have 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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Funds Authorizations were signed and witnessed for residents that had deposited funds in resident funds accounts at the facility. This affected three (#03, #10 and #34) out of the five residents reviewed for resident funds accounts. The facility census was 34. 1) Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 10/19/19. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, and type II diabetes mellitus (DM II). Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 had intact cognition as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. Review of the facility's Resident Funds Accounts Balance Sheet dated 07/30/25 revealed Resident #34 had $1552.74 dollars in her resident funds account. Review of Resident 34's record revealed Resident #34 did not have a Resident Funds Authorization on file at the facility. Interview with Regional…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-31 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident on Medicaid was notified when their account reached $200.00 dollars less than that supplemental security income (SSI) resource limit for one person and the facility failed to ensure a resident's personal funds held in a resident's funds account were conveyed within 30 days of discharge. This affected two (#31 and #48) out of the five residents reviewed for resident funds accounts. The facility census was 34. 1)Review of the medical record for Resident #31 revealed an admission date of 07/30/24. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, hepatitis B, type II diabetes mellitus (DM II), and depression. Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 had moderate cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10. This resident was assessed to require setup with eating, dependent with toileting, bathing, dressing, and transfers. Review 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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status matched in the separate paper chart and a resident's Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order form was signed by the physician in the paper chart. This affected one (#03) of the 16 residents reviewed for code status. The facility census was 34. Review of Resident #03's chart revealed Resident #03 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with sepsis, type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, heart failure, type two diabetes mellitus with hypoglycemia without coma, sleep apnea, muscle weakness and progressive supranuclear ophthalmoplegia. Review of Resident #03's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #03's paper chart revealed Resident #03 did not have a DNR order form signed by a physician in the paper chart. Review of Resident #03's Code Status Consent Form located in the paper chart dated 10/30/24 revealed Resident #03 signed a consent…
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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received beneficiary notices to inform them of the right to an expedited review or about the potential non-coverage and the option to continue services with the beneficiary accepting financial liability for the services. This affected two (#46 and #47) of the three residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility census was 34. 1) Review of Resident #46's chart revealed Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with cellulitis, other asthma, acute embolism and thrombosis of right femoral vein, rheumatoid arthritis, unspecified macular degeneration, Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia, and other intervertebral disc displacement lumbar region.Review of Resident #46's census information from 02/26/25 to 04/03/25 revealed Resident #46's payer source was Medicare Part-A from 02/26/25 to 04/03/25. Resident #46 discharged from the facility on 04/03/25.Review of Resident #46's progress notes from 02/26/25 to 04/03/25 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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received bed hold notices for transfers to the hospital. The facility also failed to notify the Ombudsman of a resident's transfer to the hospital. This affected one (#03) of the one resident reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 34. Review of Resident #03's chart revealed Resident #03 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with sepsis, type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, heart failure, type two diabetes mellitus with hypoglycemia without coma, sleep apnea, muscle weakness and progressive supranuclear ophthalmoplegia. Review of Resident #03's chart from 02/02/24 to 07/30/25 revealed there was no documentation that Resident #03 received a bed hold notice for her 03/25/25 and 05/17/25 discharges to the hospital. Further review of Resident #03's chart revealed no documentation that the Ombudsman was notified of Resident #03's discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of Resident #03's quarterly Minimum…
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 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDSs) assessment was completed for a resident that admitted to hospice. This affected one (#43) of 15 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The facility census was 34. Review of Resident #43's chart revealed Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with malignant neoplasm of bladder, unspecified protein calorie malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, atrial fibrillation, hyperlipidemia, history of falling, muscle weakness, hypokalemia, retention of urine, hydroureter and sepsis. Resident #43 was discharged from the facility on 07/05/25. Review of Resident #43's MDS assessments from 06/16/25 to 07/05/25 revealed Resident #43 did not have a significant change MDS assessment transmitted or completed upon Resident #43's admission to hospice services on 06/19/25. Review of Resident #43's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively…
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 · D2025-07-31 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed for a resident with a new mental health diagnosis. This affected one (#23) of the two residents reviewed for PASARRs. The facility census was 34. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral vascular accident, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus type 2, blindness in the right eye, congestive heart failure, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, malnutrition and dementia. Review of Resident #23's facility assessments from March 2025 to July 2025 revealed Resident #23 did not have a significant change PASARR completed for diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Review of Resident #23's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/30/25, revealed the resident had cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three. 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 · D2025-07-31 · 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 review of the medical record, interviews, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents, who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) were provided grooming for facial hair. This affected one (#38) resident of three reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 34.Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 01/02/25. Diagnoses included type II diabetes mellitus (DM II), altered mental status, and schizophrenia. Review of the care plan dated 01/08/25 revealed Resident #38 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to weakness, history of being a victim of physical abuse by a family member, and trauma. Interventions included assistance with bathing/showering, setup with bed mobility, dressing, and eating, encouraged to use call light for assistance, and used walker to maximize independence with transferring.Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had severe cognitive…
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 · D2025-07-31 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were within expiration date in the medication cart. This had the potential to affect three (#02, #06, and #15) of the three residents who were administered Pro-Stat. The facility census was 34. Observation on [DATE] at 3:11 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #803, revealed the [NAME] Hall medication cart had a Pro-Stat (albuterol) inhaler opened and was expired. The manufacturer's expiration date was marked as [DATE]. Interview with LPN #803 at the same time, verified the Pro-Stat inhaler had expired and needed to be discarded.Observation on [DATE] at 3:23 P.M. with LPN #30, revealed the Emerald Hall medication cart had a Pro-Stat inhaler that was opened and expired. The manufacturer's expiration date was marked as [DATE]. Interview with LPN #30 at the same time, verified the Pro-Stat inhaler had expired and needed to be discarded.Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage and Labeling, 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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a cognitively impaired resident was explained or understood an Arbitration Agreement prior to signing the agreement. This affected one (#38) of the three residents reviewed for arbitration agreements. The facility census was 34. Review of Resident #38's chart revealed Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with adult physical abuse confirmed subsequent encounter, rectal prolapse, hypertension, schizophrenia, and altered mental status.Review of Resident #38's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had a BIMS score of a one indicating Resident #38 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #38's undated arbitration agreement revealed Resident #38 signed the arbitration agreement that stated she was agreeing to arbitration and waving her…
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 before2025-05-23 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident room was free from holes in wall, free from broken drywall, and free from black debris on the wall. This affected one (#16) out of the three residents reviewed for cleanliness of rooms. Additionally, the facility also failed to ensure the shower rooms were free from black substance along the flooring near the walls. This had the potential to affect 19 (#17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, and #35) residents who use the shower room on the Emerald and [NAME] Halls. The facility census was 35. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 12/12/23 with medical diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Intellectual Disabilities, and hypertension. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/14/25, which indicated Resident #16 had severely impaired cognition and required set-up…
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 before2025-02-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of Legionella Water Management Plan, review of Water Management Evaluation Tool, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to follow public health authority recommendations to revise the Water Management Plan in a timely manner and failed to monitor pH levels of water sources. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 40: Findings include: Review of Legionella Water Management Plan dated [DATE] revealed the facility identified members of the Water Management Team with the exception of naming the Maintenance Director; described the buildings water systems including circulation of water, number of mixing valves and hot water tanks, absence of holding tanks, points of recirculation, and location of tees; and listed the verification process including weekly checks and documentation of pH levels and water temperatures and flushing unused sinks and showers. There were no parameters listed for how long unused sinks and showers were flushed and no parameters for pH…
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 before2024-07-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to assess residents identified prior to admission as a fall risk and failed to thoroughly investigate a fall. This affected two (Residents #38 and #43) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 42. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #38 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included hypertensive crisis, essential primary hypertension, hemiplegia, gout, spinal stenosis, and syncope. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was cognitively impaired. Resident #38 was dependent on staff for medication administration, bathing, and toileting. He required assistance from staff with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #38's hospital referral prior to entering the facility stated Resident #38 was a high fall risk. Review of Resident #38's assessment titled, Fall Risk Assessment, dated 06/12/24 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 · Fcited before2023-11-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly store food in the dry storage area. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Observations of the kitchen on 11/19/23 at 9:40 A.M. with Kitchen Staff #320 revealed the dry storage area had seven unopened 12-ounce (oz) cans of carnation evaporated milk with the manufacturer's use by date of 06/13/22. One unopened 32-oz box of buttermilk pancake mix with manufactures use by date of 07/08/23. There were four one-gallon jugs of honey mustard with facility received date marked 06/20/no year. Upon opening on of the lids of the honey mustard revealed an unsealed manufacturer's top leaking onto the plastic lid causing it to ooze onto the side of the jar. Interview with Kitchen Staff #320 on 11/19/23 at 9:45 A.M. verified the seven cans of evaporated milk, pancake mix, and honey mustard were expired and all of it needed to be disposed of. Interview on 11/27/23 at 9:55 A.M. with the Administrator stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident, family, and staff interviews, policy and procedure review, observations, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean homelike environment for Resident #12. This affected one (Resident #12) of three residents reviewed for a clean and homelike environment. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/24/23 with diagnosis including major depressive disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #12 had intact cognition and no rejection of care. Review of Resident # 12's plan of care dated 10/31/23 revealed it was silent for refusal of cleaning services, preferences of not utilizing trash receptacles, or requests of personal item placement for utilization. Observation of Resident #12's room on 11/19/23 at 8:52 A.M. revealed the resident was lying in bed with her eyes closed. The floor under Resident #12's bed and surrounding floor area had a red dried…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to administer a resident's wound treatments per physician orders. This affected one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Closed record review for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 10/02/23. Diagnoses included peripheral vascular disease, obesity, type two diabetes mellitus, polyneuropathy, and wounds to left lower extremity and right great toe. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 had intact cognition and had no behaviors and no rejection of care. Review of Resident #3's physician orders dated 10/03/23 and discontinued on 10/08/23 revealed an order to cleanse the left lower extremity with wound cleanser or normal saline, apply double layer of xeroform abdominal pads, and wrap with cling every night shift. Review of Resident #3's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated October 2023 revealed there was 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 · D2023-11-27 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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, observations, and resident and staff interviews, the failed to provide a functional, and accessible call system for the residents. This affected two (Residents #12 and #16) of three residents reviewed for call light accessibility and functioning. The facility census was 37. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/24/23. Diagnoses included cellulitis of right lower limb, chronic kidney disease, venous insufficiency, lymphedema, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and major depressive disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #12 had intact cognition and had no rejection of care. Resident #12 was dependent on staff for bathing and required substantial or maximal assistance from staff with toileting and hygiene. Interview and observation on 11/27/23 at 9:05 A.M. revealed Resident #12 was sitting in a wheelchair with a towel covering her head and a short-sleeved shirt.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-08-03 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a safe comfortable environment when the ceiling was missing tiles by the nursing station. This had the potential to affect all 42 Residents in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 08/02/23 at 2:00 P.M. revealed the front hall ceiling was missing approximately 16 tiles above the nurses station. Interview on 08/02/23 at 2:15 P.M. with Regional Maintenance Director #15 verified the front hall ceiling was missing approximately 16 tiles above the nurses station. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00144785.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, document review, and observation the facility failed to have a safe homelike environment when they failed to have properly functioning hot water in the back part of the building. This affected 18 residents living in rooms 27-46 (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, and #18). The facility census was 42. Findings include: Observation on 08/02/23 at 11:05 A.M. revealed there was no hot water in the resident shower room on the back hall. Interview on 08/02/23 at 11:07 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #10 verified there was no hot water on the back hall in the resident rooms or in the shower room. STNA #10 stated the water has been out for a month. Interview with a confidential resident on 08/02/23 at 11:10 A.M. revealed the resident stated they did not want their name used but there is no hot water in part of the building. Interview with a confidential resident on 08/02/23 at 1:15 P.M. revealed the resident did not want her name used, but they do not have hot water in their room. Interview on 08/02/23 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-21 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the resident fund accounts, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to timely close one discharged resident's (#93) fund account. This affected one (#93) of five resident personal funds accounts reviewed. The census was 33. Findings include: Review of the resident funds for discharged residents revealed Resident #93 expired on [DATE]. Review of Resident #93's personal funds account. revealed the account was not closed and had a current balance of 490.02 dollars with a Medicaid payer. Interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #75 and the Administrator on [DATE] at 2:05 P.M., verified the 490.02 dollars in Resident #93's fund account was not sent to Medicaid state recovery. Resident #93 was the only expired resident with an account the past year. At that time, the Administrator added they were not successful when they attempted to find the resident's family after his death six months ago. Review of the policy titled Patient Resident Trust Fund Policy dated 05/2018, 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 · D2022-04-21 · tag F0646 — isolatedNotify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority of a change in resident's mental health status. This affected one (#22) of one resident reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) during the annual survey. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of Resident #22's PASARR dated 07/25/18 was silent in section D indicating Resident #22 did not have any indications of serious mental illness. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/26/18. Diagnoses included but were not limited to the following: cerebral infarction, acute and post procedural respiratory failure, left hand contracture, left elbow contracture, difficulty in walking, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder, and unspecified psychosis. Review of Resident #22's psychiatric follow up evaluation, dated 04/22/21, revealed Resident #22 had a history of depression, psychosis, sexually inappropriate behaviors, and personality disorder. The notes indicated Resident #22's issues…
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 · D2022-04-21 · 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 resident interview, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to include residents and/or their representatives in care planning meetings and conduct quarterly care plan meetings. This affected three (#3, #8, and #29)of four residents reviewed for Care Planning during the annual survey. The facility census was 33. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/19/18, with diagnoses including: Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, dysphagia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Hypertension, Acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy, and altered mental status. Review of Resident #8's medical record was silent for Care Conference notes. Review of Resident #8's profile contained three contacts with phone numbers, two of which were designated as a Care Conference Person. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #550 on 04/20/22 at 11:31 A.M., revealed no evidence of Care Conference for Resident #8 for 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 before2022-04-21 · 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 observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent. The facility had two errors of 27 opportunities resulting in a 7.41% error rate. This affected one (#36) of six residents observed during medication pass. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #36 admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of right lower limb cellulitis, mild primary open-angle glaucoma, age-related bilateral nuclear cataract, type II diabetes, and Stage III chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #36's physician orders for Latanoprost Solution 0.005% instill one drop in both eyes at bedtime and Timolol Maleate Solution 0.5% instill one drop in both eyes at bedtime related to primary open-angle bilateral mild stage glaucoma. Observation on 04/18/22 at 9:05 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #140, looked in the medication cart and medication room but did not locate Resident #36's Latanoprost or Timolol eye…
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 · D2022-04-21 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, physician and staff interviews, the facility failed to timely notify the physician of critical lab results. This affected one (#25) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 01/20/22. Diagnoses included breast cancer, acute kidney failure, constipation, major depressive disorder, history of COVID-19, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, morbid obesity, anemia, history of displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, hyperlipidemia, congestive heart failure, seizures, cerebral aneurysm, and essential hypertension. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/22/22, revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The resident did not exhibit any behaviors during the assessment period. The resident was dependent on two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and extensive assistance of one staff for eating. Review of a progress note dated 02/21/22 at 8:35 A.M., Resident #25…
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 · F2019-04-18 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of 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 observations, medical record review, menu review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide meal preferences for residents and failed to follow prepared menus for the residents. This affected one (#8) of two residents reviewed for food preferences. The facility failed to update the menus when substituting equally nutritious food and notifying residents of the changes. This affected all 33 of 33 residents who received meals form the kitchen. The facility census was 33. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted [DATE], with diagnoses including: adult failure to thrive, anemia hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, nausea with vomiting unspecified, cough, osteo arthritis of knee, diabetes mellitus without complications, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had intact cognition for decisions.…
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 before2019-04-18 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, review of manufacture's instructions and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent. The facility had a an error rate of two of 27 opportunities resulting in a 7.41%. This affected one (#29) of six residents observed during medication pass. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Record review for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 03/07/19, with diagnoses including: acquired absence of right leg above knee, muscle weakness, anxiety, depression, type two diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of Resident #29's physician orders revealed an order for Humalog (fast acting insulin) 100 unit / milliliter (ml) per sliding scale subcutaneous with meals related to type two diabetes. a. Observation on 04/16/19 at 4:56 P.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #37, during medication administration revealed LPN #37 to obtain a Humalog Kwik pen labeled 100 unit / ml. LPN #37 visually viewed the liquid in the Humalog Kwik pen, applied a new needle, then proceeded to dial to 10…
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 · D2019-04-18 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, review of manufacture's instructions and facility policy, the facility failed ensure a resident was free from a significant medication error by not priming an insulin pen prior to preparing ordered dose. This affected one (#29) of six residents observed during medication pass. The facility identified two residents (#29 and #181) who used insulin pens. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Record review for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 03/07/19, with diagnoses including: acquired absence of right leg above knee, muscle weakness, anxiety, depression, type two diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of Resident #29's physician orders revealed an order for Humalog (fast acting insulin) 100 unit / milliliter (ml) per sliding scale subcutaneous with meals related to type two diabetes. a. Observation on 04/16/19 at 4:56 P.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #37, during medication administration revealed LPN #37 to obtain a Humalog Kwik pen labeled 100 unit / ml. LPN #37 visually viewed the liquid in the Humalog Kwik…
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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER — 79 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 78 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 78; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLYER 7 OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/29/2022 |
| ACM ASHEM HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/29/2022 |
| FTK FLYER OH, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/29/2022 |
| FYLER 7 HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/29/2022 |
| ZANZIPER FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/29/2022 |
| BIRNBAUM, EZRA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| HIRSCH, SHAYE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| MOERMAN, RAFAEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| SINGER, SIMON | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| XENIA PROPERTY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| HARRISON, QUIANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2024 |
| KRIESER, AKIVA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| ZANZIPER, NATALIE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2025 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| FASTEN HALBERSTAM LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| GALE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| MED-NET COMPLIANCE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2018 |
| NPNH1 LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| OVATION REHABILITATION SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| SHS KEREN LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| THE PAVILION MANAGMENT COMPANY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| VERACITY RESOURCING AND SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| WISE MEDICAL STAFFING, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
| CRAGER, MARK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2025 |
| ZANZIPER, NAFTALI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
16 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 26% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365187. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.