2615 Derr Road, Springfield, OH 45503 · Clark County · (937) 390-0005
124 certified beds, about 102 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365514 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 21, 2025, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 65 health citations since January 2020 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.25 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.60 of those hours.
52.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Communicare Health, an affiliated group of 110 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 65 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to timely assess a resident's wounds. This affected one (#95) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The census was 98.684Findings include: Review of Resident #95's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/26/23. Diagnoses listed included hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteomyelitis, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, morbid obesity, and diabetic neuropathy. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #95 had moderately impaired cognition and had no venous or arterial ulcers. Review of the physician orders for Resident #95 revealed an order dated 04/27/26 for calcium alginate (absorbent wound dressing) and duoderm (bordered foam dressing) to the bottom of right foot. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility to ensure resident medications were not left at bedside during administration. This affected one (#88) of three reviewed for medications. The census was 98. Review of Resident #88's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/28/19. Diagnoses listed included obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, arthritis, and obesity. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed Resident #88 had moderately impaired cognition. Observation during an interview with Resident #88 on 06/15/26 at 10:58 A.M. revealed a medication cup containing various pills and tablets on the bedside table. Resident #88 stated his nurse had left them there for him to take. Interview and observation with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/15/26 at 11:01 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were receiving the correct urinary catheter size in accordance with the resident's physician order and care plan. This affected one (#93) of three residents reviewed for urinary catheter placement. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and pharmacist interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as physician ordered. This affected one (#104) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility censes was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately changed contaminated gloves during incontinent care. This affected one (#95) of three residents reviewed for incontinent care. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, water management plan review, water management plan log review, staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to update their Legionella water management plan and complete the routine monitoring of the Legionella water management plan. This affected 110 out of 110 residents that resided at the facility. The facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions and contact precautions. This affected three (#10, #63 and #82) of three residents reviewed for infection control precautions. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident, family and staff interview, review of facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) were provided regular assistance with showers and grooming. This affected four (#4, #63, #67, and #263) of four residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain resident rooms in a clean and homelike manner. This affected 14 residents (#4, #5, #6, #11, #15, #32, #34, #37, #47, #51, #80, #85, #94, and #101) of 15 residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's advance directives were clearly maintained and documented in the resident's medical record. This affected two (Residents #11 and #47) of two residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility's self-reported incident (SRI) and investigation, resident and staff interview, review of police report, personnel file, and e-mails, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse by an employee and staff witnessing the abuse did not intervene. This affected one (Resident #90) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded for falls and discharge location. This affected two (#90 and #109) of 23 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority with a significant change Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for a resident that had a change in their mental health condition. This affected one (#90) of two residents reviewed for significant change PASARR. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop care plans to address a resident's use of an anticoagulant and a resident's vision needs. This affected two (#67 and #90) of 23 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were given the opportunity to participate in the development of their care plans and the care plan meetings had a interdisciplinary team present. This affected three (#16, #63, and #90) of six residents reviewed for resident participation in care planning. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff communicated with residents in a language or manner they could understand. This affected one (Resident #94) of one resident reviewed for communication and language. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, staff interview, resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure skin checks were completed weekly as care planned, wound treatments were completed as order and physician orders were clarified for skin impairment treatments. This affected one (#18) of three reviewed for non-pressure skin impairments. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, family interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure vision services were provided as recommended by vision specialist. This affected one (#67) of one resident reviewed for vision services. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure falls were thoroughly investigated to determine potential cause of the falls to prevent future falls. This affected one (#67) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's urinary catheter collection bag was properly maintained to prevent potential infections. This affected one (#211) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received routine dental care. This affected one (#63) of two residents reviewed for dental care. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy and thoroughness of the documentation in the resident medical record. This affected two (#18 and #107) of 23 sampled resident records reviewed. Facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure arbitration agreements provided for the selection of a venue that was convenient to both parties. This affected three (#90, #98 and #99) of three residents reviewed for arbitration agreements. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review, pest control invoice review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a pest free environment. This affected two (#5 and #94) of two residents reviewed for pest control. Facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accommodate resident preferences to create a home-like environment when the common dining room was closed without resident notice. This affected 10 (#6, #25, #32, #36, #38, #41, #71, #79, #92, and #110) of 114 residents who frequently dine in the common dining room. The facility identified two (#33 and #53) residents who receive no food by mouth. The census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient staffing levels to accommodate for the common dining room to remain open for resident use. This affected 10 (#6, #25, #32, #36, #38, #41, #71, #79, #92, and #110) of 114 residents who frequently dine in the common dining room. The facility identified two (#33 and #53) residents who receive no food by mouth. The census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was updated and posted daily as required. This affected all 116 residents who resided in the facility. The census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, family interview, staff interview, record review, review of the staffing tool, review of staff schedules, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the facility had adequate staffing to meet the resident's needs. This affected one (Resident #104) of three residents reviewed for staffing and had potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident meals were prepared, distributed, and served in a clean and sanitary manner to prevent contamination. This had the potential to affect all facility residents, except two (#74 and #87) that were identified with orders for no oral intake (NPO). The census was 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interviews, family interviews, staff interviews, record review, review of the State agency online reporting portal, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the State agency within the required timeframes. This affected one (Resident #100) of five residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, review of hospital records, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #115 was able to return to the facility following a hospital stay. This affected one (Resident #115) out of three residents reviewed for discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure Resident #100 received the home health company of choice upon discharge. This affected one (Resident #100) out of three residents reviewed for discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, residents and staff interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). This affected one (Resident #104) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate nursing services to assure residents could attain and/or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being while ensuring Resident #115's mobility was not restricted. This affected one (Resident #115) out of three residents reviewed for discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected three residents (#97, #100, and #104) out of five residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure equipment was maintained and in working order. This affected two residents (#99 and #100) of three reviewed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview, the facility failed to provide residents with discharge summaries. This affected three (#110, #111, and #112) out of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to initiate treatment on a pressure ulcer present upon a resident readmission. This affected one (#77) out of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, activity calendar review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a variety of activities were offered to meet residents' needs and interests. This affected two (#41 and #48) of two residents reviewed for activities and had potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to safely store food in the walk in freezer and dry storage areas of the kitchen. This affected all residents except Resident #16 and #76 who do not eat food from the kitchen. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident council minutes, staff and resident interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident council concerns were addressed in a timely manner. The facility also failed to ensure residents were knowledgeable on how to file a complaint with the state or contact the Ombudsman. This affected three (#31, #36, #20) of 10 residents that regularly attend the resident council, with the potential to affect the 10 residents. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wrote2. Interview on 03/28/23 at 9:10 A.M., with Resident #31 revealed at times the bathroom sink water was too hot. Observation on 03/28/23 from 9:29 A.M. to 9:42 A.M., revealed Resident #31's bathroom sink had a temperature of 139 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and Resident #41's bathroom sink had a temperature of 138 degrees F. Interview on 03/28/23 at 9:42 A.M., with Resident #41 revealed the bathroom sink water temperature was hot to touch. Observation on 03/28/23 from 9:50 A.M. to 10:10 A.M., with Administrator revealed water temperature as follows: Resident #31's room water temperature was 137.8 degrees F; Resident #28 and #87's room water temperature was 135.3 degrees F; Resident #23 and #41's room water temperature was 137.8 degrees F; Resident #53 and #58's room water temperature was 132.9 degrees F; Resident #2 and #10's room water temperature was 138.6 degrees F; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored with open dates and not kept past expiration dates. This affected 13 (#10, #15, #21, #87, #54, #86, #89, #96, #19, #95, #37, #64, and #27) of 13 residents' insulins observed in medication storage. The facility identified 23 Residents who currently receive insulin. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff and resident interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity during resident care. This affected one (#48) of three residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents and resident representatives were offered the opportunity to participate in care planning. This affected two (#31 and #60) of two residents reviewed for care conferences. Facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff and resident interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed for self-administration of medication. This affected one (#41) of 26 residents observed in the sample. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to issue the CMS -20052 form to indicate skilled coverage was ending. This affected two (#35 and #26) of three residents who exhausted their Medicare Part A Skilled Services. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's room was provided a room in a home like environment by not utilizing the resident's room for facility storage. The affected one (#18) of six residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents or resident representatives of facility policy for bed holds, to include amount of bed hold days used and left and potential cost liability. This affected two (#54 and #86) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interview and policy review, facility failed to ensure members of the interdisciplinary team (IDT) with the resident and/or resident representative reviewed and revised care plans at least quarterly. This affected two (#31 and #60) of two residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interviews and policy reviews, the facility failed to provide timely assistance with discharge planning for a resident requesting to discharge from the facility. This affected one (#48) of one resident reviewed for discharge planning. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure bathing was provided for dependent residents. This affected three (#64, #27, #48) of three residents reviewed for bathing. The census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with incontinence supplies to prevent the potential for infections and skin impairments. This affected one (#48) of two residents reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence during the annual survey. The census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a complete an accurate medical record was maintained for a resident. This affected one (#48) of 33 total resident records reviewed. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and review of facility policy,the facility failed to update the care plan when a resident's fluid restriction was discontinued. This affected one (Resident #94) of one resident reviewed for hydration. The facility also failed to conduct quarterly care conferences for three Residents (#22, #72, and #109) of five residents reviewed for participation in care planning. The census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of directions for sani cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control procedures for the cleaning of the blood glucose monitoring machine after each use to prevent the spread of infections. This affected one (Resident #102) of two residents reviewed for blood glucose monitoring. The facility identified 10 Residents (#9, #16, #36, #37, #48, #49, #53, #54, #56, and #96) who received blood glucose monitoring on the 200 hallway. The facility census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff nterview, and review of facility guidelines the facility failed to accurately assess residents in the Pre-admission Screening/Resident Review (PASRR) process. This affected two Resident's (#66 and #109) of four residents reviewed for PASRR's. The census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility guidelines, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority and state intellectual disability (ID) authority after a significant change. This affected one (Resident #109) of four residents screened for Pre-admission Screens/Resident Reviews (PASRR). The census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to address frequent urinary tract infections (UTIs) on the comprehensive care plan. This affected one (Resident #10) of 22 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of closed medical record, interview with facility staff, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop a post-discharge plan of care that addressed discharge needs, goals, treatment preferences, caregiver support as well as referrals made to address post-discharge needs. This affected one (Resident #119) of one resident reviewed for appropriate discharge planning. The census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview with facility staff, the facility failed to provide set-up assistance with eating. This affected one (Resident #109) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility identified 100 residents who required at minimum set-up assistance with eating. The census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy the facility failed to provide fluids when a fluid restriction was discontinued. This affected one (Resident #94) of one resident reviewed for hydration. Facility census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and manufacturers recommendations review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. Staff failed to ensure insulin lispro Humalog Kwikpen was primed prior to use according to manufacturer's recommendations. This may cause the resident to get too much or too little insulin. This affected one (Resident #49) of two residents observed for insulin administration. The facility census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical record, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at a residents bedside. This affected one (Resident #95) of five residents observed for medication administration. Facility census was 121.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident council meetings, staff and resident interview, review of facility policy and Resident [NAME] of Rights, the facility failed to act promptly upon grievances of Resident Council nor demonstrate their response and rationale. This had the potential to affect all 121 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview with facility staff and residents, observations, and review of Resident [NAME] of Rights the facility failed to ensure a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers for pertinent State regulatory and informational advocates were posted. This had the potential to affect all the residents. The census was 121.
31 fire safety citations on file: 14 on April 21, 2025, 15 on March 30, 2023, 2 on January 30, 2020.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.25 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.60 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.93 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.85 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.80 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.5% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.03 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.39 on weekdays and 2.93 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.26 in April to June 2025 to 3.25 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.25 | 0.60 | 3.39 | 2.93 | 1.8% | 0 of 90 | 102 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.14 | 0.57 | 3.28 | 2.79 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.25 | 0.60 | 3.42 | 2.84 | 3.9% | 0 of 92 | 103 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.26 | 0.56 | 3.44 | 2.80 | 3.3% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.1 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.4 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Allen View Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (45.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
45.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 35 eligible stays.
12.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 37 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 23 eligible stays.
70.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 45 residents counted.
1.8% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 45 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 15 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: DERR LEASING CO LLC. CMS links this home to Communicare Health, a group of 110 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Romeo, Dominic | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Stoltz, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/21/2018 | |
| Wilheim, Ronald | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/21/2018 | |
| Derr Mgt Co., LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/21/2018 | |
| Groves, Donna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/14/2023 | |
| Remmert, Tiffany | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/24/2023 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Vemana, Siva | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/20/2018 | |
| Derr Mgt Co., LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/17/2025 | |
| Ohi Asset (oh) Springfield, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/20/2018 | |
| Remmert, Tiffany | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/24/2023 | |
| Vemana, Siva | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/20/2018 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.