Omni Manor Nursing Home
3245 Vestal Road, Youngstown, OH 44509 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (330) 793-5648 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2019
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0569)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- 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
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 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 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.9% | 5.3% | 15.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 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 | 3.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.2% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.6% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 57.7% | 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.
27.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 45% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 27.8%CMS range 18.4–39.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 6.8–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 130 beds and averages 111.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 18 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 3.34 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.00 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.47 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2022-04-28 · 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, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to timely complete a voiding trial, thoroughly monitor urinary output, assess abdominal discomfort or fullness, and properly treat Resident #82's urinary retention. Due to the delay in urinary retention treatment, actual harm occurred on 04/12/22 when Resident #82's abdomen was hard and distended, she grabbed her perineal area, winced and grimaced when her perineal area was touched, had 700 cc urine output when catheterized, the catheter was attached to a drainage bag and fifteen minutes later an additional 800 cc of urine drained into the bag. On 04/13/22 at 9:56 A.M. Resident #82's indwelling catheter was draining dark red, bloody urine, blood pressure was 96/50 with a pulse of 110 and was transported and admitted to the local hospital for evaluation. This affected one resident (Resident #82) out of three residents reviewed for catheter care and services. The facility census was 109. Findings include: 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 · D2025-08-09 · 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 record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for residents requiring durable medical equipment including a tube feed pump. This affected one (Resident #5) of four residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 104. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 04/25/25 and a discharge date of 06/24/25. Diagnoses included need for assistance with personal care, anxiety disorder, dysphagia oropharyngeal phase, and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of the plan of care dated 04/27/25 noted Resident #5 had the potential for fluid deficit related to receiving nutrition via a gastrostomy tube (G-tube). Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] noted Resident #5 had intact cognition. Resident #5 received nutrition via G-tube. Review of the physician order dated 05/29/25 noted Resident #5 was receiving Fibersource (tube feeding supplement) 1.2 continuous at 65…
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 · E2025-04-16 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor residents' preferences for meals. This affected nine Residents (#41, #71, #73, #75, #77, #78, #91, #92 and #104) of ten reviewed for meal preferences. The facility census 119. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 06/28/22. Diagnoses included obsessive compulsive disorder, hypertension, mild intellectual disabilities and epilepsy. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 was severely cognitively impaired. He required partial to moderate assistance with eating. Review of the medical record for Resident #71 revealed an admission date of 08/01/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and depression. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident #71 was severely cognitively impaired. She required supervision or touching assistance with eating. Review of the medical record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation of Resident #120 who claimed he hit his head on the ceiling of the van when the transport driver drove over speed bumps while on an appointment on 01/28/25. This affected one resident (#120) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 119. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #120 revealed an admission date of 01/09/25 and a discharge date of 01/31/25. Diagnoses included malnutrition, osteomyelitis (infection of the bone), muscle weakness, arthritis, kidney disease, and diabetes. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Dat Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #120 was cognitively intact. He was independent with eating, oral hygiene, toileting and showering. Review of the health progress noted dated 01/28/15 revealed Resident #120 had an appointment with the Blood and Cancer Center. Review of the social services progress note dated 01/29/25…
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 · Fcited before2024-08-01 · 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 policy review the facility failed to ensure the kitchen area was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and that all food was labeled, dated and stored properly. This had the potential to affect 119 residents receiving food from the kitchen. There were two residents identified as receiving nothing by mouth (#29 and #37). The facility census was 121. Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour conducted on 07/29/24 at 9:15 A.M. the following was observed and verified with Dietary Supervisor #168. 1. Drawer one of the right three drawer utensil cabinet for clean utensils storage had visible dirt and grease in it. 2. Drawer three of the left three drawer cabinet contained an open container of chicken stock. The chicken stock was unlabeled as to when it was opened. There was also an open, one pound bag of country gravy mix. The bag of gravy mix was one quarter full and unlabeled as to when it was opened. 3. In the dry storage area there was a one- and one-half pound bag of crispy onions. The bag was one quarter full, opened and undated. 4. In…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure its refuse area was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 121. Findings include: Observation of the outside kitchen area with Dietary Supervisor (DS) #168 on 07/29/24 at 9:15 A.M. revealed numerous items of debris including Styrofoam cups, plastic wear and other numerous refuse items around the door where garbage was taken out of the kitchen. A grey cart with wheels had bagged garbage in it that was uncovered. There were grey lids for the cart located in the area. The large dumpster for garbage was overflowing with bagged garbage. The lid for the large dumpster was unable to be closed. DS #168 verified the aforementioned findings at the time of the observation. Interview on 07/29/24 with DS #168 during the observation, revealed the garbage in the small grey bin was not taken to the large dumpster because it was overflowing and there was no room for current garbage to be placed. DS #168 stated the large dumpster was often full.…
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 · E2024-08-01 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure 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
Based on record reviews,resident council minute review, interviews and observations the facility failed to follow the menu. This affected 15 of 119 residents (#3, #5, #7, #28, #30, #38, #41, #42, #50, #71, #75, #95, #99, #113 and #118) who received meals from the kitchen. There were two residents (#29 and #37) who received nothing by mouth. The census was 121. Findings include: Review of the dinner menu on 07/30/24 revealed sloppy joes, sweet potato waffle fries and corn were on the menu for dinner. The alternate to the main entree was a hot ham and cheese sandwich and mashed potatoes. Observation on 07/30/24 from 4:10 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. revealed the facility ran out of sloppy joes and sweet potato waffle fries during dinner service for 16 residents. They used the four remaining hot ham and cheese sandwiches and mashed potatoes, the alternate, to replace four of them. They used peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the remaining 12. At the time of the observation, Food Service Director #168 verified the facility did not calculate the proper amount of food needed. The Registered…
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 · E2024-08-01 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interviews and observations the facility failed to provide food that was served at a palatable temperature. This had the potential to affect 119 residents as two residents (#29 and #37) received nothing by mouth. The census was 121. Findings include: Interviews on 07/29/24 during the screening process of the annual survey with Resident #45, Resident #48, Resident #55, Resident #71, Resident #74 and Resident # 422 revealed concerns with temperature of the food stating it was often cold. Observation of trayline on 07/30/24 from 4:10 P.M. through 6:00 P.M. revealed staff were not utilizing bases for hot pellets until questioned by surveyor. Interview at 4:12 P.M. with Food Service Manager #168 revealed they did not use those. The staff did use them for tray line at the time however they ran out of bases for the following: North Unit-11 residents, East Unit-12 residents and South Unit-16 residents. The same cart for South Unit also ran out of hot pellets for 16 residents. Observation of the test tray on 07/31/24 revealed it was delivered to the South unit 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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach. This affected two residents (#45 and #53) of five residents reviewed for call light accessibility and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 121. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #45 revealed an admission date of 11/12/19. Diagnoses included dementia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and coronary artery disease. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment date 06/14/24 revealed the resident was rarely or never understood. She required substantial or maximum assistance for eating and was dependent for oral hygiene of toileting, showering and personal hygiene. Review of the care plan dated 06/14/24 revealed Resident #45 was at risk for falls due to poor safety awareness, history of putting herself on the floor, being combative with care and Alzheimer's. Interventions included therapy referrals as needed,…
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 · D2024-08-01 · 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
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to refund resident funds within 30 days of discharge. This affected two residents (#373 and #374) of seven residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 121. Findings include: #1. Review of resident records for Resident #373 revealed an admission date of 10/13/22 and a discharge date of 09/01/23. A review of the Document titled; Choice of Resident Funds Disposition revealed Resident #373 authorized the facility to hold, safeguard and account for personal funds. The document was signed by Resident #373's son on 10/18/19. On 07/31/24 at 12:58 P.M. a review of resident fund balances dated 07/30/24 revealed a balance of $1485.33 for Resident #373. An interview with Bookkeeper #124 at the time of fund review verified an account balance of $1485.33 for Resident #373. Bookkeeper #124 also verified the funds were not refunded within 30 days of discharge and the account was still active. #2. Review of resident records for Resident #374 revealed an admission date of 05/07/21 and a discharge date 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 · D2024-08-01 · 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 review of Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letters and staff interview, the facility failed to provide residents forty eight (48) hours' notice of their skilled services were no longer covered. This affected three residents (#97, #107 and #122) of three reviewed for liability notices. The census was 121. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #97's medical record revealed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter revealed services were ended on 03/13/24. The time sensitive, appeal notification letter was signed by Resident #97 but dated by facility staff. Unable to verify accurate date of notification. 2. Review of Resident #107's medical record revealed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter revealed services were ended on 07/25/24. The time sensitive, appeal notification letter was signed by Resident #107 on 07/24/24, not allowing 48 hours' notice of non-coverage. 3. Review of Resident #122's medical record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-04 · 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 closed medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure wound care was completed as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #150) of three residents reviewed for wound care. The census was 117. Findings include: Review of Resident #150's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 04/21/23 with the diagnoses of antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody vasculitis (a rare autoimmune disorder that causes inflammation of the blood vessels), calculus of the kidney, and an abnormal electrocardiogram (test to detect heart rhythm). Review of Resident #150's care plan dated 05/03/23 revealed interventions to include administration of medications and treatments as ordered. Review of the resident's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed intact cognition and the presence of skin tears. Review of the skin assessments revealed the resident had a skin tear to the back of her right hand. Review of the physician orders for Resident #150 revealed an order for wound care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-04 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure wound care was documented as ordered. This affected two residents (Resident #61 and #101) of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 117. Findings Include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 04/17/23. Resident #61's current diagnoses include congestive heart failure, cerebral infarction (stroke), myocardial infarction (heart attack), neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, colostomy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the 04/02/24 Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed Resident #61 to be cognitively intact. Review of Resident #61's physician orders revealed an order dated 02/13/24 through 04/23/24 for the sacrum to be cleansed with normal saline, apply drawtec (a dressing that promotes moist wound healing) in a single layer and cover with coversite plus (a waterproof composite dressing that can replace gauze and tape) every shift. A new treatment order was written and completed from 04/24/24 through 04/30/24. 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 · F2022-04-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication carts and medication storage areas did not contain expired medications and failed to ensure insulin pens were labeled with the date opened. This affected 13 residents (Resident #6, #33, #37, #46, #50, #62, #65, #83, #88, #90, #91, #106, and #113) and had the potential to affect all 109 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Observation on 04/27/22 at 8:18 A.M. of the medication cart on the South wing revealed the following findings: • Lantus Solostar 100 units per milliliter (u/ml) insulin pen for Resident #91 was not marked with the date opened. • Lispro 100 u/ml insulin pen for Resident #62 was not marked with the date opened. • Lantus 100 u/ml vial for Resident #62 was not marked with the date opened. • Haloperidol oral solution 2 milligrams per milliliter (mg/ml) for Resident #106 was not marked with the date opened. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #420 on 04/27/22 at 8:30 A.M. during observation of medication cart for the South wing verified the above…
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 · F2022-04-28 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — widespreadPerform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to test Resident #9 who was displaying signs and symptoms of COVID-19. This had the potential to affect all 109 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 02/29/20 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #9, revealed he had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #9 required extensive two-person physical assistance for bed mobility, extensive one-person physical assistance for dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene, and supervision set up help only for eating. Resident #9 had an indwelling catheter for urine and was always incontinent of bowel. Review of nursing progress note dated 04/23/22, revealed Resident #9 had an increased temperature of 99 degrees Fahrenheit, his heart rate was increased at 103 beats…
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 · E2022-04-28 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2, Resident #32, Resident #37, Resident #39, Resident #65, Resident #68, and Resident #85 bathrooms were in good repair. This affected 7 residents (Resident #2, Resident #32, Resident #37, Resident #39, Resident #65, Resident #68, and Resident #85) of seven residents oberved for environment. Findings include: Observation on 04/26/22 at 8:47 A.M. revealed the bathroom sink faucet was observed to be leaking in the jack and [NAME] bathroom in between Residents #2, #65, and #68. Interview during the observation with Resident #2 confirmed the faucet has been leaking for a long time. Observation on 04/26/22 at 8:48 A.M. revealed the toilet seat in the jack and [NAME] bathroom for Residents #32, #37, #39, and #85 was broken off the toilet. The seat was slid to the right and half covering the opening of the toilet. Interview and observation on 04/28/22 at 8:47 A.M. with Housekeeper #462 confirmed the broken toilet seat 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 · D2022-04-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #97's oxygen was administered per physician orders by licensed nursing staff. This affected one resident (Resident #97) out of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings include: Review of Resident #97's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/26/22 and diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, acute embolism and thrombosis of the left femoral vein. Review of Resident #97's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/01/22, revealed Resident #97 had severe cognitive impairment and required the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility and toilet use, and required total dependence of two staff members for transfers. Review of Resident #97's care plan dated 04/01/22, revealed Resident #97 had altered respiratory status and difficulty breathing related to chronic infiltrates on chest x-ray. Resident #97 would have no complications related to shortness of breath through the review date. Interventions included…
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 before2019-04-26 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe storage of resident foods. This had the potential to affect 113 of 115 residents receiving meals/food from the facility (the facility identified two residents, Resident #9 and Resident #48, as not receiving meals/food from the facility). The facility census was 115 residents. Findings include: Observational tour of the resident snack areas with Kitchen Manager (KM) #300 on 04/22/19 starting at 9:38 A.M. revealed the following concerns: the North unit refrigerator had a container of resident food dated 03/24/19; the East unit refrigerator had three unlabeled and undated plates of resident food and the [NAME] unit had a container of some type of dip that was unlabeled and undated. Interview with KM #300 at the time of the above observations revealed dietary staff only monitored the expiration dates of facility-provided nourishments. KM #300 stated foods were to be labeled, dated and discarded within three days if not consumed. Review of a facility policy, Refrigerator and Freezer Outside of Nutrition…
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 · F2019-04-26 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately represent the acuity needs of the residents, update the assessment when contracted services from staffing agencies were added to the facility and annually educate all staff on abuse training. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 115. Findings included: 1. An interview was conducted on 04/25/19 at 9:31 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) who said the facility began utilizing two staffing agencies on 11/26/18 to provide additional State Tested Nursing Assistants and Licensed Nurses to the facility due to staffing challenges. Record review was conducted of the active nurse staffing list provided by the DON revealed approximately 66 agency nursing services staff had been set-up to use the electronic documentation system for the facility. Record review was conducted of the Facility Annual assessment dated [DATE]. The addition of the two contracted staffing agencies was not included 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 · F2019-04-26 · tag F0943 — widespreadGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide annual abuse prevention training to all staff. This affected four of 11 staff personnel files reviewed and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 115. Findings included: 1. Review of the personnel file for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #343 no annual abuse training, competency evaluation or dementia with behaviors training. LPN #343 was listed on the active staffing list for the facility. An interview was conducted on 04/26/19 at 10:59 A.M. with Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN) #344 who verified LPN #343 was not included in the annual training and competency evaluation because she only worked per diem (as needed) and had last worked on 09/17/18. CRN #344 verified LPN #343's date of hire was 11/08/16 and she was eligible as an active staff member to work in the facility at any time. 2. The personnel files for State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs) #345, #347 and #348 were reviewed. There was no documentation to indicate STNA #345 and STNA #348 had received annual dementia…
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 · E2019-04-26 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide dignity for residents during dining and regarding incontinence status. This affected four (Residents #55, #82, #103, and #110) of all 116 residents observed for dignity. Findings include: 1. On 04/22/19 between 11:51 A.M. and 1:15 P.M., observations were made of dining on the South wing. The first meal cart arrived on the unit at 11:51 A.M. and trays were delivered to residents eating in their rooms. At 12:15 P.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #348 was overheard asking Registered Nurse (RN) #350 to call the dietary department and inform them three trays were needed. RN #350 made the call. Within seconds of the phone call, the second cart arrived. The first meal in the dining was served at 12:19 P.M. Residents #55, #103, and #110 were still sitting at the tables with no meal at 12:53 P.M. while all other residents were eating. Resident #55 stated he sometimes had to wait while other residents ate and it did bother him,…
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 · E2019-04-26 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff were available to provide restorative nursing services. This affected one resident (Resident #22) of three residents reviewed for accidents and had the potential to affect all 36 other residents identified by the facility who were currently on restorative nursing programs (Residents #1, #4, #5, #6, #10, #17, #19, #20, #21, #23, #25, #26, #28, #29, #32, #35, #38, #40, #47, #53, #57, #58, #61, #69, #71, #76, #77, #78, #85, #86, #101, #102, #105, #107, #109, and #113). Findings include: Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed diagnoses including emphysema, polyarthritis, chronic pain and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A restorative plan of care revealed Resident #22 was scheduled to receive a restorative ambulation program six to seven days a week for 15 minute sessions because she was at risk for decline with ambulation due to weakness and decreased mobility related to emphysema and decreased endurance. Review of restorative delivery records for February 2019 and March 2019 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 · E2019-04-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were maintained for Resident #216, who was on contact isolation. This had the potential to affect the other residents on the South wing, one of four resident units. The facility identified 34 residents (Residents #4, #5, #8, #21, #22, #23, #26, #27, #32, #38, #39, #46, #53, #54, #55, #59, #62, #64, #71, #75, #76, #77, #79, #85, #92, #95, #102, #103, #104, #107, #109, #110, #215, #216) who resided on South wing. Findings include: Resident #216 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and diagnoses included cellulitis. Review of Resident #216's medical record revealed a physician order dated 04/19/19 for contact isolation to be in place due to pseudomonas, an infection, in his leg wounds. On 04/24/19 at 9:50 A.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #352 was observed pushing an over bed table with a water mug out of Resident #216's room and leaving the table sitting in the hall outside the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-26 · 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 record review and interview the facility did not ensure a witness signature was obtained on an authorization to manage personal funds in the facility for Resident #6. This affected one of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Record review was conducted for Resident #6 who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy and unspecified intellectual disabilities. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was severely impaired for cognitive skills for decision making, was unable to complete the resident interview for cognition and was totally dependent on staff for transfers, eating, toileting and hygiene. Resident #6's brother was listed as his Power of Attorney (POA) over his financial and clinical care. Review of the facility document titled, Trust Transaction History, dated 01/03/19 to 03/31/19 revealed Resident #6's financial liability was being paid to the facility from the income source…
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 · D2019-04-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI) and associated investigation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to protect Resident #27 from sexual abuse, failed to implement their action plan to protect residents from sexual abuse, and failed to ensure staff were knowledgeable regarding interventions implemented to prevent future abuse. This affected two (Residents #79 and #27) of four residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of Resident #79's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility 10/24/17 and diagnoses included depression. A plan of care card dated 07/13/18, and updated 10/31/18, indicated Resident #79 used a power wheelchair independently. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #79 was able to make himself understood and he understood others. Resident #79 was assessed as cognitively intact with no behavioral symptoms. Resident #79 required limited assistance with locomotion 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 · D2019-04-26 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI) and associated investigation, and interviews, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation into an allegation of sexual abuse, failed to implement their action plan to protect residents from sexual abuse, and failed to ensure staff were knowledgeable regarding interventions implemented to prevent future abuse. This affected two (Residents #79 and #27) of four residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of Resident #79's medical record revealed he was a male resident admitted to the facility 10/24/17. Resident #79 had a diagnosis of depression. A plan of care card dated 07/13/18, and updated 10/31/18, indicated Resident #79 used a power wheelchair independently. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #79 was able to make himself understood and he understood others. Resident #79 was assessed as cognitively intact with no behavioral symptoms. Resident #79 required limited assistance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure minimum data set (MDS) assessments were correctly coded to accurately reflect resident condition. This affected three residents (Resident #22, Resident #54 and Resident #109) of 28 residents reviewed for accurate assessments. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #54 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, Alzheimer's disease, blindness in left eye, and hypertension (high blood pressure). The medical record revealed a hospice contract was signed 05/23/18 and a physician's order dated 05/22/18 to start hospice care. A plan of care dated 05/23/18 was in place for Resident #54's hospice services, with a goal of the resident being supported to promote dignity and comfort throughout the dying process daily though 06/30/19. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident #54 was cognitively impaired but was not coded as receiving hospice services…
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 · D2019-04-26 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services according to the care plan for Resident #22. This affected one of three residents reviewed for accidents. Findings include: Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed diagnoses including emphysema, polyarthritis, chronic pain and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A restorative plan of care revealed Resident #22 was scheduled to receive a restorative ambulation program six to seven days a week for 15 minute sessions because she was at risk for decline with ambulation due to weakness and decreased mobility related to emphysema and decreased endurance. Review of restorative delivery records for February 2019 revealed the services were not documented as provided in accordance with the plan of care. For the week of 02/03/19 through 02/09/19 Resident #22 received five days of restorative ambulation. For the week of 02/10/19 through 02/06/19 she only received three days of restorative ambulation. For the week of 02/17/19 through 02/23/19 she only received five days 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 · D2019-04-26 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide 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 record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #44 and Resident #97 were provided activities of interest to meet their individualized needs. This affected two of two residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 115. Findings included: 1. Record review revealed Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, legal blindness, traumatic brain injury, major depression and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had severe cognitive impairment, needed extensive assistance of one to two staff for all activities of daily living. The plan of care, initiated on 11/13/17, indicated he needed assistance with all activities of daily living. An observation was conducted of Resident #44 on 04/23/19 from 11:52 A.M. to 12:33 P.M. He was initially found sitting in his wheelchair in a hallway near a common area where other residents were sitting in a group. He was approximately ten feet away from the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-26 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation and interviews the facility failed to provide a nutritional supplement according to physician orders for Resident #44. This affected one of six residents reviewed for nutrition. Findings included: Record review for Resident #44 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, legal blindness, traumatic brain injury, major depression and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had severe cognitive impairment, needed extensive assistance of one to two staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, eating, dressing and hygiene. The plan of care with an initial date of 11/02/17 indicated he had the potential for skin, nutrition and hydration problems related to his cognitive impairment, was at risk for weight loss and should be provided nutritional supplements as ordered. Review of the Medical Nutrition Therapy Evaluation dated 04/09/19, authored by Registered Dietitian (RD) #301, on indicated that Resident #44…
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 · D2019-04-26 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders resulting in three medication errors out of 25 opportunities with a medication error rate of 12%. This affected three (Residents #17, #48, and #72) of eight residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: 1. On 04/24/19 at 8:07 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #306 was observed administering medication to Resident #48. As LPN #306 prepared to apply a Lidocaine 5% patch (applied topically to the skin for pain) to Resident #48's arm she discovered there was already a patch on the right arm. LPN #306 removed the Lidocaine patch from the right arm and applied the new patch to the left arm. Immediately following the application of the patch, LPN #306 verified the order for the Lidocaine patch indicated it was to be applied for 12 hours then removed for 12 hours. LPN #306 verified the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the lidocaine patch had been applied on the right arm the morning of 04/23/19. Although,…
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 before2019-04-26 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure meal and supplement intake records were consistently recorded. This affected two residents (Resident #42 and Resident #49) of six residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 115 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #42's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/04/19 with diagnoses including repeated falls, hypertension (high blood pressure), depression and hypothyroidism. Review of physician orders for April 2019 revealed an order dated 02/27/19 for a no added salt diet with vanilla ice cream at dinner. Review of the April 2019 treatment administration record (TAR) revealed oral intakes at meals were not recorded for dinner on 04/02/19; all three meals on 04/03/19; breakfast and lunch on 04/04/19, 04/05/19 and 04/06/19; dinner on 04/07/19; all three meals on 04/08/19, 04/09/19 and 04/10/19; breakfast and lunch on 04/11/19, 04/12/19 and 04/13/19; all three meals on 04/14/19; dinner on 04/15/19; all three meals on 04/16/19 and 04/17/19; dinner on 04/18/19; breakfast and lunch on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-08-01 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure posted nursing staff information was updated in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 121. Findings include: Observation of the posted nursing staff information on 07/29/24 at 7:52 A.M. revealed the posted nursing staff information was dated 07/26/24. Interview on 07/29/24 at 9:34 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the posted staffing information had not been updated since 07/26/24. Observation of the posted staffing information on 07/31/24 at 8:20 A.M. revealed the posted staffing information was dated 07/30/24. Interview on 07/31/24 at 9:33 A.M. with the DON confirmed the posted staffing information had not been updated.
“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 WINDSOR HOUSE, INC. — 11 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MASTERNICK, JOHN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 02/29/1980 |
| WINDSOR HOUSE INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/24/2025 |
| DELLIQUADRI, JOHN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/1997 |
| MISSO, JOHN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/14/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 365433. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-01, 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.