Continuing Healthcare At Cedar Hill
1136 Adair Avenue, Zanesville, OH 43701 · For profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (740) 454-6823 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- 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 (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $30,227 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-30)
- 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 (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 1 to 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 | 2.4% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 17.8% | 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 | 4.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.7% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.5% | 25.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.0% | 21.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.8% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.3% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.6% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.5% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.87 | 1.73 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.49 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 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.
55.8% 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 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.0% 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 25 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 52% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 14% — 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 | 55.8%CMS range 43.7–68.6 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 7.8–16.6 | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 44.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.4–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.22 | 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 90 beds and averages 76.8 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.47 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
35 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-01-05 · 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 closed medical record review, review of a facility fall investigation, hospital record review, review of the facility Fall policy and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident #78 adequate assistance for transferring/ambulation with toileting to prevent a fall with major injury. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm on [DATE] when Resident #78, who was admitted to the facility for rehabilitation status post hospitalization for a left total knee replacement (on [DATE]) and who was assessed to be at moderate risk for falls sustained a fall while being assisted by one State Tested Nursing Assistant, (STNA) #176 to walk from her bed to the bathroom. The resident was subsequently assessed to have dislocation to her knee (replacement) and a popliteal artery injury (an injury mainly associated with high energy injury, including knee dislocation with causes including falls and crush injuries) requiring a left above the knee amputation. The resident did not return to the facility…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, policy review, facility investigation review and staff interview, the facility failed to prevent a resident fall with major injury. Actual Harm occurred on 06/24/24 when Resident #14, who was identified as a fall risk, was hit by a dietary cart (used to transport resident meal trays) that was being steered by Dietary [NAME] #20, causing the resident to fall and sustain a right hip fracture. The resident was emergently transported to the hospital and admitted for surgical intervention to repair the right hip fracture. This affected one resident (#14) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included femur fracture, metabolic encephalopathy, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and anxiety disorder. Review of the Care Plan, 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 · Ecited before2026-07-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 one resident (#70) with cognitive impairment was supervised while leaving the facility resulting in a fall in the parking lot. This affected one resident of seven reviewed for accidents. The facility also failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were implemented as care planned for Resident #10 and #29. The facility census was 79.Findings Include: 1.Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/30/26 with diagnoses that included acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure, Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, schizoaffective disorder, depression, anxiety and repeated falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed moderate cognitive impairment. He had no impairment to his upper or lower extremities and required partial to moderate assistance with ambulation. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was at moderate risk for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-07-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 observation, interview, product information review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure multi-use insulin vials and insulin flex pens stored in the medication administration carts were properly dated, stored, and/ or discarded when needed. This affected four residents (Resident #9, #35, #68, and #70), who had their insulin stored in the medication administration cart for the East Back Hall. The facility also failed to ensure medications were stored securely, this affected three resident (#35, #12 and # 65), who were observed to have medication/wound treatment at the bedside. This had the potential to affect four residents (Resident #13, #36, #67, and #73) on the East Hall and five residents, (#2, #25, #34, #48, and #57) on the secured behavioral unit who were cognitively impaired and identified as independent with ambulation or mobile in wheelchairs. The facility census was 79. Findings include: 1.) On 07/01/26 at 10:35 A.M., an observation was made of the East Back Hall medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-07-01 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interviews, staff interviews, review of mealtimes, and review of dietary schedules, the facility failed to ensure evening meals were served at normal times due to adequate and qualified staff. This had the potential to affect all 21 residents residing on the back East Hall. The facility census was 79.Findings include: Interview on 06/28/26 at 9:30 A.M. with Resident # 42 revealed meals are never served on time and on 06/26/26 dinner was not served until 9:00 P.M. Interview on 06/28/26 at 10 :00 A.M. with Resident # 35 revealed meals have been late for two weeks. Interview on 06/29/26 at 2:30 P.M. with Dietary Aide # 451 revealed she had only employed at the facility since last week and on 06/26/26 Dietary Manager #551 had to stay over to help until 8:00 P.M. Interview on 06/29/26 at 2:43 P.M. with Dietary Manager #551 verified on 06/26/26 the evening dinner trays did not get delivered until 7:00 P.M. and it was outside the normal meal timeframe. She stated there was no reason why specifically just running behind, she was working with two new employees who just…
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 · D2026-07-01 · 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 and interview the facility failed to notify the state long term care ombudsman of the transfer and/or discharge of two residents. This affected two residents (#81 and #83) of four sampled for discharges/ hospitalizations. The facility census was 79.Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #81's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/28/26, a discharge date of 04/20/26 and diagnoses including encounter for other orthopedic aftercare, acquired absence of right leg above knee, unspecified asthma, diabetes, end stage renal disease, anxiety, acute on chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, histoplasmosis, hypertension, and major depressive disorder.Review of Resident #81's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a brief interview for mental status score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of Resident #81's MDS revealed the resident utilized a wheelchair for mobility, was independent with bed mobility, and required partial/moderate…
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 before2026-07-01 · 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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were coded accurately to include all known diagnoses and medication classifications received during the assessment reference date. This affected one (Resident #1) of 24 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included major depressive disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, polyneuropathy, and chronic pain syndrome. Review of Resident #1's active physician's orders revealed the resident was receiving Atorvastatin (a cholesterol lowering medication) 40 milligrams (mg) by mouth (po) every night at bedtime (hs) for hyperlipidemia. The order originated on 04/08/26. The resident also had an order to receive Citalopram (an antidepressant) 40 mg po every morning for depression. That order also originated on 04/08/26. The resident was also receiving Suboxone (a medication used to treat opioid use…
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 · D2026-07-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident (# 11) had a care plan that included appropriate interventions to prevent her from causing skin impairment when picking at her skin. The facility also failed to ensure a resident had a comprehensive care plan that addressed vision impairment with the use of glasses for one resident, (# 17). This affected two (Resident #11 and #17) of 24 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 79. Findings include:1.) Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included adult-onset diabetes mellitus, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), allergic dermatitis, anxiety disorder, and Schizo-affective disorder. Review of Resident #11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident did not have any communication issues and she was cognitively intact. She was not known to display any behaviors or reject care during 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 · Dcited before2026-07-01 · 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 record review, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure grooming/shaving were provided to dependent residents. This affected one resident (#70) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The census was 79.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #70 revealed an admission date of 03/30/26 with diagnoses including acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure, Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, schizoaffective disorder, depression, anxiety disorder, and repeated falls. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. The resident was assessed to require assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL's). Review of Resident #70's care plan dated 04/14/26 revealed personalized care with interventions including resident prefers to receive a shower. Resident #70 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to falls, schizophrenia and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-07-01 · 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, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a known behavior of picking at her skin had her fingernails trimmed as part of her interventions and the facility staff identified areas of impaired skin integrity when completing weekly skin assessments. This affected one (Resident #11) of four residents reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. They also failed to ensure a resident's hospice provider was notified when an incident occurred involving one of their hospice residents. This affected one (Resident #30) of one residents reviewed for hospice services. Findings include: 1.) Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included adult-onset diabetes mellitus, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), allergic dermatitis, anxiety disorder, and Schizo-affective disorder. Review of Resident #11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure skin prevention interventions were implemented for a resident with a known pressure ulcer per the plan of care. This affected one resident (#8) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 79.Findings include:Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/22/26 with diagnoses including chronic venous hypertension with ulcer of left lower extremity, dysphagia, down syndrome, muscle weakness, retention of urine and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/06/26 revealed severe impaired cognition and he was dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers with two staff assist, no impairment to upper or lower extremities and was at risk for pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #28's physician's orders, dated 05/27/26, revealed an order for Triad Hydrophilic wound dress external paste to buttocks three times a day and a low air loss mattress. Review of the care plan 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 · D2026-07-01 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had appropriate justification for use of medications. This affected one (Resident #70) of six residents reviewed for medication use. Facility census was 79.Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/30/26 with diagnoses that included acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure, Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, schizoaffective disorder, depression, anxiety and repeated falls. Review of the physician's orders dated 04/15/26 revealed an order for Tagamet (used to treat and prevent heartburn, also used for sexually inappropriate behavior ) 200milligrams (mg) Oral Tablet one tablet by mouth two times a day for sexual behaviors. Review of Resident #70's behavior documentation from March 2026 through June 2026 revealed one indicated behavior of public sexual acts on 04/29/26. Review of Resident #70's care plan dated 04/07/26 revealed no indication of sexual behaviors. Interview on 06/30/26 at 4:05 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON), verified no documentation 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.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory testing for a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) and lipid panel were obtained in the month of June 2026, as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include:Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease (ASHD) and heart failure. Review of Resident #1's physician's orders revealed the resident was to receive Atorvastatin (a cholesterol lowering medication) 40 milligrams (mg) by mouth (po) every night at bedtime for hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol in the blood). The order originated on 04/08/26. The resident was also receiving Furosemide (a potassium depleting diuretic) 40 mg po twice a day and Potassium Chloride Extended Release (ER) 20 milliequivalents (meq) po every morning for hypokalemia (low potassium level in the blood). The physician's orders…
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 before2026-07-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to clean dishes in a safe and sanitary manner. This affected all 79 residents residing at the facility. Findings include:Observation on 06/29/26 at 10:02 A.M. with Regional Dietary Manager #468 of the dishwasher cycles revealed wash temperature of 160 Fahrenheit (F) and rinse temperature of 150 F. She ran five more cycles and temperatures still did not meet minimum requirements.Review of the dishwasher logs for December 2025 revealed on 12/26/25 the breakfast wash cycle was 138 F.No dishwasher logs for January 2026.Review of the dishwasher logs for February 2026 revealed wash cycles on 02/01/26, 02/02/26, 02/04/26, 02/05/26, 02/07/26, 02/09/26, 02/10/26, 02/12/26, 02/15/26, 02/16/26, 02/17/26, 02/18/26, 02/19/26, 02/21/26, 02/22/26, 02/24/26, 02/26/226 did not meet minimum temperature requirement of 150 F.No dishwasher logs for March 2026.Review of the dishwasher logs for April 2026 revealed wash cycles on 04/22/26 did not meet minimum requirement of 150 F; and rinse cycles on 04/03/26 and 04/22/26 did not meet 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection prevention and control practices when staff failed to use proper personal protective equipment while providing care for one resident (#11), with the potential to affect 13 additional residents (#1, #3, #16, #17, #19, #22, #28, #33, #39, #51, #55, #61, and #84) who received care from the same staff; and failed to ensure newly hired staff completed required two-step Mantoux/tuberculosis screening upon hire for two of 13 employee files reviewed, Social Services Director #450 and Nursing Scheduler #366. The facility census was 79. Findings Include:1: Interview with the Human Resources Director #150 was conducted on 07/01/26 from 8:00 A.M. to 8:45 A.M. regarding staffing file review, employee health requirements, and Mantoux/TB screening documentation. Review of employee health screening documentation revealed Social Services Director #450 had a hire date of 11/28/25. Review of the employee file…
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 · D2025-12-09 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received specialized therapy services as written in the plan of care. This affected one resident (#60) of three residents reviewed for specialized therapy services. The census was 77.Findings include:Medical record review revealed Resident #60 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including wedge compression fracture of second lumbar vertebra, unspecified dementia, unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness, cerebral infarction, anxiety and difficulty in walking not elsewhere classified. Review of the Physical Therapy (PT): Plan of Treatment and Orders revealed therapy services were initiated on 08/21/25. The PT plan of treatment certification periods included 09/19/25 through 10/18/25; 10/15/25 through 11/13/25, 11/14/25 through 12/06/25, and 12/06/25 through 01/04/26. The services were to be provided three to five times a week for therapeutic exercises, therapeutic activities, neuromuscular reeducation, and gait…
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 before2025-11-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #54 received necessary services to maintain good oral hygiene. This affected one (Resident #54) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The facility census was 71. Findings include:Review of Resident #54's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included major depressive disorder, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on his feet, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and the need for assistance with personal care. Review of Resident #54's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident did not have any communication issues and was cognitively intact. He was not known to display any behaviors, nor was he known to reject care. He was coded as being dependent on staff for oral hygiene. He was indicated to be edentulous with no natural teeth or tooth fragments noted. Review of Resident #54's care plans revealed he had 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 · Dcited before2025-11-26 · 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 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to follow physician orders to apply ice packs several times a day to the left knee of Resident #72 who was status post left total knee replacement. This affected one (Resident #72) of three residents reviewed for admission and post-surgical physician orders. The facility census was 71. Findings Include:Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #72 revealed an admission date of 10/16/25 after having a left total knee replacement on 10/13/25. Resident #72's diagnoses included diabetes, anemia, heart disease, high blood pressure and gastric reflux.Review of the initial nursing assessment completed on 10/16/25 revealed Resident #72 had a brief interview for mental status score of 14/15, meaning the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed Resident #72 was dependent for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the facility in good repair and maintain a home like environment. This affected 12 of 41 resident rooms currently occupied by residents in the facility. The resident census was 70.Findings Include: On 09/18/25 tour of the facility between 9:50 A.M. and 10:20 A.M. the following environmental issues were observed: 1. room [ROOM NUMBER] behind the bed by the window, the wall was gouged and the paint peeling.2. room [ROOM NUMBER] the wall was patched and not painted in multiple places.3. room [ROOM NUMBER], 105 and 201 the ceiling was peeling and hanging down.4. room [ROOM NUMBER] by the bathroom door and corner by the dresser was gouged and scraped.5. The wallpaper was torn on both sides of the door by room [ROOM NUMBER].6. Between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] the wallpaper was torn.7. room [ROOM NUMBER] the wall behind and beside the bed had gouges in multiple places.8. Baseboard was missing in the hallway by room [ROOM NUMBER]…
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 before2025-01-23 · 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, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to store perishable items under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all 85 residents residing in the facility. All residents were identified as receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings include: Observations of the walk in freezer on 01/21/25 at 8:18 A.M. revealed several undated/unlabeled items which were later identified by Dietary [NAME] #205 as follows: four bags of hash browns removed from their original packaging and now stored in a two-gallon plastic storage bags, a bag of tater tots removed from their original packaging which had been opened and were now stored in a two-gallon plastic storage bag, one bag of chicken tenders removed from their original packaging and now stored in a two-gallon plastic storage bag, three bags of frozen drumsticks removed from their original packaging and now stored in two-gallon plastic storage bags, five bags of Hawaiian rolls and two of which had been previously opened, one previously opened bag of cinnamon rolls which were stuck…
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 before2025-01-23 · 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 observation, staff interview, and review of the shower cleaning sheets, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary shower room. This affected all 45 residents (#3, #7, #11, #13, #14, #15, #18, #19, #20, #22, #23, #25, #26, #27, #30, #35, #36, #40, #41, #42, #43, #45, #46, #47, #49, #52, #59, #61, #62, #63, #64, #67, #69, #72, #73, #75, #79, #232, #233, #234, #236, #237, #282, #332, and #334) residing on the east wing of the facility who utilized the facility's shower room. The facility census was 85. Findings include: Observation on 01/21/25 at 11:40 A.M. of the facility's East Wing shower room revealed the room hosted two shower stalls. One stall was clear while the other stall hosted several shower chairs. Along the shower wall of the second shower stall was a moderate amount of green residue. Review of the Shower Cleaning Sheet revealed housekeeping staff were to clean shower rooms on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The cleaning involved cleaning the sink, stocking soap and paper towels, disinfecting the tub, sweeping and mopping the floors, cleaning the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide unopened mail for Resident #41. This affected one resident (#41) out of one resident reviewed for privacy. Findings included: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #41 was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, heart disease, obstructive and reflux uropathy, conduct disorder, chronic osteomyelitis, heart failure, major depressive disorder, dementia, suicidal ideation, depression, and hypertension. Review of the annual minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 dated 09/06/24 revealed Resident #41 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15. Resident #41 had no impairment of functional range of motion in upper or lower extremities and reported no pain and received no pain medication. Review of Resident #41's admission agreement dated 02/20/19 revealed he wished to receive his mail unopened. Interview on 01/21/25 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 before2025-01-23 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to correctly identify Resident #52's psychotropic diagnosis on a significant change Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) form. This affected one resident (#52) out of one resident sampled for PASRR. The facility census was 85. Findings include: Review of Resident #52's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/29/23 and diagnoses including traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety. Review of Resident #52's physician orders revealed the resident was ordered Celexa 40 milligrams (mg) in the morning for yelling out/restlessness, Depakote Delayed Release 125 mg three times daily for bipolar disorder, and Lorazepam 2 mg/milliliter (ml) with instructions to administer 0.5 ml every four hours as needed for anxiety/agitation for 90 days. Review of Resident #52's care plan dated 10/13/23 revealed the resident utilized psychotropic medications related to bipolar disorder with interventions to monitor for target…
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 · D2025-01-23 · 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 staff interview, resident interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 was provided the opportunity to participate in and attend his quarterly care conference meeting. This affected one (Resident #32) out of six residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 85. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date for 03/27/24. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type two, retention of urine, and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #32's Interdisciplinary Care Conference Summary dated 12/16/24 revealed no signatures were present on the form, indicating the interdisciplinary team (IDT) members and the resident were not present for the meeting. Review of Resident #32's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Interview on 01/21/25 at 1:02 P.M. Resident #32 revealed he had not had a care plan meeting since his admission to the facility (March…
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 before2025-01-23 · 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 review of resident medical records, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services related to a significant weight loss for Resident #17. This affected one (Resident #17) of six residents (Resident #1, #12, #17, #32, #57, and #134) reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 85 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified dementia, and anxiety disorder. Review of the care plan dated 07/30/24 revealed Resident #17's had a nutritional problem or a potential nutritional problem related to chronic disease, was at risk for malnutrition, and was using a mechanically altered diet and thickened liquids. The interventions included to monitor and record signs and symptoms of malnutrition, including significant weight loss of over five percent (%) in one month, the dietitian was to evaluate and make diet change…
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 before2024-05-29 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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 observations, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy/procedure review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary living environment. This affected one resident (#68) of three residents reviewed for a sanitary living environment. The facility census was 75. Findings include: Observations on 05/29/24 at 10:30 A.M. and 10:45 A.M. revealed mouse droppings in a basket in Resident #68's bedroom. The basket had personal items in it, as well as a box of snack cakes (each individual cake was sealed). Resident #68 was admitted to the facility 11/24/22 with diagnoses including type II diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular dementia, need for assistance with personal care, difficulty walking, dysphagia, cerebral aneurysm, autonomic neuropathy, insomnia, ventral hernia, hyperlipidemia, depression, obesity, atrial fibrillation, hypothyroidism, and hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/01/24, revealed Resident #68 was cognitively intact. Interview with Resident #68 on 05/29/24 at 10:35 A.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-15 · 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 NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, interview, record review and facility investigation review the facility failed to prevent Resident #20 from exiting the facility without staff assistance. This affected one resident (Resident #20) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 80. Finding include: Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date on 06/09/23. Diagnosis included unspecified dementia, anxiety, and encephalopathy. Review of Resident #20's physician order dated 06/26/23 revealed the resident had a wanderguard (a magnetized fob that is placed on the wrist or ankle to alert staff when a resident is exiting an alarmed door) placed on her ankle and for placement to be checked every shift. Review of Resident #20's Care Plan revealed the resident was a risk for elopement related to impaired cognition, wandering, a history of attempting to leave 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 · Fcited before2023-07-13 · 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, staff interview, and facility policy review for food storage and hand hygiene, the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored and meal trays were prepared in a sanitary manner. This affected all residents residing in the facility at this time. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Observation on 07/10/23 at 8:11 A.M. revealed during initial tour of the kitchen, there were bags of food located in the walk-in freezer that was not properly sealed. There was one bag of breaded chicken tenders, one bag of tater tots, and one bag of french fries. All three bags were noted to be open with the food exposed to the open air. Interview on 07/10/23 at 8:50 A.M. with Dietary Manager #342 confirmed the three open bags of food. Dietary Manager #342 also confirmed any food stored in the freezer needed to be properly sealed to protect the food from the freezer air. Review of facility's policy titled Food Storage, revised 09/08/2021 revealed, all food stock and products are stored in NSF approved sanitary storage container, of food quality plastic bags, covered,…
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 before2023-07-13 · 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, interview, and facility record review, the facility failed to ensure the clean laundry room, which had a gas powered dryer, had a carbon monoxide detector. This had the potential to affect all 77 residents residing in the facility. Findings included: Observation on 07/13/23 at 8:30 A.M. of the clean laundry room revealed there were two dryers, one electric powered and one gas powered. Further observation revealed no carbon monoxide detector in the laundry room. Interview on 07/13/23 at 8:40 A.M. with Housekeeping Staff #347 revealed she had never seen a carbon monoxide detector in the clean laundry room with the gas dryer. Interview on 07/13/23 at 9:00 A.M. with Maintenance Staff #418 verified the UniMac dryer was a gas powered dryer and there was no carbon monoxide detector in the room. He also verified there should be a carbon monoxide detector in the room, and he didn't know how he missed it. Review of the facility Carbon Monoxide Detector Monitoring Log revealed there was no carbon monoxide detector in the laundry room with the gas dryer.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #42 was treated with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#42) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 77. Findings included: Review of Resident #42's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, type two diabetes mellitus without complications, lymphedema, and essential hypertension. Review of Resident #42's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/02/23, revealed she was cognitively independent. Observation on 07/10/23 at 11:06 A.M. and 3:30 P.M. and 07/11/23 at 8:11 A.M. revealed a paper sign on Resident #42's door stating, (resident's proper name) has right arm lymphedema and cannot have blood pressure taken or blood drawn from this arm! (Resident's proper name) also has a port in her chest from previous chemotherapy. Please be careful not to bump! Thank you!. Observation of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-13 · 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 medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure each residents Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the use of antipsychotic medication or reflected the contraindication for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for that antipsychotic. This affected two residents (Resident #42, and #50) of the 20 residents reviewed for accurate MDS. The facility census was 77. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 12/22/2020. Diagnosis included Alzheimer disease, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and mood affective disorder. Review of Resident #42's physician orders revealed a order dated 12/2020 for Perphenazine (antipsychotic) 2 milligrams (mg) twice a day for bipolar disorder. Review of the plan of care dated 01/03/2021 and revised 10/31/2022 revealed Resident #42 was at risk of adverse reactions related to depression, the use of psychoactive medications, and an affective mood…
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 before2023-07-13 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy for preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure a new PASRR was submitted for residents with a new mental health diagnosis. This affected two residents (Resident #38, and #23) of the two residents reviewed for accurate PASRR assessments. The facility census was 77. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 05/22/2019. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, protein-calorie malnutrition, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of Resident #38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating an intact cognition for daily decision making abilities. Review of Resident #38's most recently completed PASRR dated 06/17/2019 revealed under Section D, indications of serious mental illness, the diagnosis schizophrenia was the only diagnosis marked for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-13 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was on fluid restriction had fluid intake monitored and documented. This affected one Resident (#24) of one resident reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 77. Findings included: Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed she was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, dependence on renal dialysis, essential hypertension, and generalized muscle weakness. Review of Resident #24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 06/10/23, revealed she was slightly cognitively impaired and had active diagnoses of renal insufficiency, renal failure and end stage renal disease. Further review revealed she was independent with setup help only for eating. Review of Resident #24's MDS timeline revealed she was out of the facility from…
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 · D2023-07-13 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was receiving hemodialysis was assessed prior to and upon return from dialysis and there was communication between the facility and the dialysis center. This affected one resident (#24) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 77. Findings included: Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed she was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, dependence on renal dialysis, essential hypertension, and generalized muscle weakness. Review of Resident #24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 06/10/23, revealed she was slightly cognitively impaired and had active diagnoses of renal insufficiency, renal failure and end stage renal disease. Further review revealed she received dialysis prior to and while being 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 · D2023-07-13 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were not prescribed prior to receiving lab testing results and prescribed appropriately according to lab testing results. This affected one (Resident #23) of five residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/19/23 with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia and obstructive and reflux uropathy. Review of Resident #23's progress notes revealed on 04/27/23 the resident was transferred to the local emergency room (ER) for evaluation. Resident #23 returned to the facility on [DATE] after ER evaluation with a diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) and new orders for cefdinir (antibiotic) 300 milligrams (mg) twice daily for seven days. A urinalysis with culture and sensitivity was obtained at the ER during evaluation. The urinalysis with culture and sensitivity was completed and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$30,227 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $13,076 — penalty dated 2024-07-30
- $17,151 — penalty dated 2024-01-05
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CERTUS HEALTHCARE — 14 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 | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHM OH WEST OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/28/2021 |
| OHIO CARE SKLD LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 12/28/2021 |
| DIPASQUA, JASON | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/28/2021 |
| FISHMAN, SHMUEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/28/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
About 75% 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 $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 366286. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-01, 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.