25675 East Main Street, Coolville, OH 45723 · Athens County · (740) 667-3156
50 certified beds, about 40 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1982
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365588 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 26, 2026, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since May 2022, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $13,627 in the last three years; the largest was $13,627, and the latest is dated September 18, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.02 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.86 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Continuing Healthcare Solutions, an affiliated group of 12 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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect 37 residents. The census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure multi-use insulin flex pens were stored properly prior to use, insulin flex pens were dated when first used, and inhalers were not left at the bedside unless there was a physician's order to do so. This affected three residents (#3, #4, and #18) of three residents identified by the facility as having the use of insulin that was stored in the [NAME] Unit medication administration cart, and one resident (#5) of five residents observed during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident and/ or their representative gave informed consent for the use of psychotropic medications. This affected one resident (#44) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received copies of their quarterly statements from their resident fund accounts. This affected one resident (#37) of five residents reviewed for resident fund accounts. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's physician was notified the resident's equipment used for treatment of lymphedema was broken for over a month impacting the treatment the resident was to receive. This affected one resident (#37) of one resident reviewed for lymphedema pumps. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a Beneficiary Notice list, review of a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form, review of liability notices, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the appropriate liability notices, when their Medicare (MCR) Part A services ended, and they remained in the facility. This affected one resident (#11) of three residents reviewed for beneficiary notices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable environment for residents. This affected two residents (#20, #4). The census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents or their representative received a bed hold notice upon transfer. This affected one resident (#20) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This affected one resident (#2) of three residents reviewed for development and implementation of the comprehensive care plan. The census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were scheduled in conjunction with the minimum data set (MDS) assessments quarterly. This affected one resident (#1) of two residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents requiring assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received nail care and showers as scheduled. This affected two residents (#33 and #44) of four residents reviewed for ADL assistance. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the bowel protocol was followed when residents did not have bowel movements for three days or longer. This affected two residents (#37, #44) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a resident received physician ordered treatment for lymphedema. This affected one resident (#37) of one resident reviewed for lymphedema pumps. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent pressure injuries were in place. This affected one resident (#6) of two residents reviewed for pressure injuries. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide indwelling urinary catheter care. This affected one resident (#20) of six residents reviewed with indwelling urinary catheters. The census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received dental services. This affected one resident (#14) of three residents reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 37.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's indwelling urinary catheter's collection bag was maintained off the floor reducing the risk of infection. This affected one resident (#44) of two residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure all mechanical, electrical, and patient equipment was in safe operating condition. This affected one resident (#37) of seven residents who are dependent on mechanical lifts for transfer. The census was 37.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on closed record review, review of the facility's timeline and related investigation, review of an emergency medical services (EMS) run report, staff interview, review of employee files, and policy review, the facility failed to provide basic life support, including CPR, to Resident #44 as per the resident's advance directives, when the resident was found unresponsive and without a pulse/ heartbeat. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and serious life-threatening harm, negative health outcomes, and subsequent death on [DATE] at 10:30 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to store and prepare food in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 42 of 42 residents at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of beneficiary protection notification review form, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40 and #41 were provided appropriate liability notices when cut from Medicare Part-A services with benefit days remaining and remained in the facility. This affected two residents (#40 and #41) of two residents reviewed who remained in the facility after being cut from Medicare Part-A services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had privacy while in their room. This affected one resident (#38) of one resident reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were invited to participate in care planning upon admission and quarterly reviews. This affected two residents (#15 and #22) of three residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed and provided activities per preference. This affected one resident (#247) of one reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place per the resident plan of care. This affected one resident (#10) of one reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, review of a resident's meal ticket, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who had a history of a significant weight loss, received nutritional interventions as ordered. This affected one resident (#35) of three residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medically related social services were provided to residents to monitor behavioral health concerns. This affected one resident (#10) of two residents reviewed for behaviors. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure narcotic pain medication ordered on an as needed (prn) basis included parameters to direct the nurses on when to administer it and failed to administer another controlled narcotic medication for the reason it was ordered for. This affected one resident (#26) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. There were 26 opportunities for error and two observed errors resulting in the medication error rate of 7.69 percent. This affected one resident (#33) of three residents observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, review of medication administration records, review of the pharmacy list for expiration dates for insulin, and policy review the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly and medications were not expired. This affected one resident (#38) residing on the East unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to maintain infection control practice while administering eye drops. This affected one resident (#6) of two observed for administration of eye drops.
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel file review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility implemented their policy and failed to ensure all staff were checked against the Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) for history of abuse. This had the potential to affect 42 of 42 residents at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files, review of the facility assessment, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the activities director was qualified. This had the potential of affect all 42 of 42 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of a medication error report and the facility's related investigation, review of hospital records, staff interview, family interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with a safe and orderly discharge as she was discharged home without clear discharge instructions. The resident was also given a medication belonging to another resident when the nurse had pulled the resident's medications from the medication administration cart and sent them home with the resident's husband without reviewing her medications. This affected one (Resident #46) of three residents reviewed for discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, facility failed to notify resident physicians and responsible parties when residents tested positive for COVID-19. This affected 11 residents (#2, #22, #27, #33, #40, #44, #66, #69, #77, #89, and #99 ) of 19 residents reviewed for COVID-19. The facility census was 40.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, facility failed to wear personal protection equipment (PPE) including N-95 respirator masks appropriately in isolation rooms. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 40.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, resident council minute review, housekeeping checklist review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment. This affected one resident (#24) of three residents reviewed regarding environment and the poor condition of the shower chair had the potential to affect 32 of 43 all residents residing in the facility (11 residents received bed baths and did not go to the shower room (#4, #12, #13, #17, #21, #23, #27, #29, #30, #34, and #41) . The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, resident record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's room was maintained for easy mobility in a wheelchair. This affected one Resident (#24) of three residents reviewed for mobility. The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, resident record review, facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, time punch documentation and facility policy review, the facility failed to send two State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs) home after an allegation of sexual abuse by a resident. This affected one resident (#46) of three residents reviewed for sexual abuse and had the potential to affect Resident #3. The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, resident record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure tube feeding was labeled when hung, orders for tube feeding were complete, and residents who received tube feedings were weighed appropriately. This affected three residents (#17, #47 and #48) of three residents reviewed for tube feeding. The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, resident record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from unnecessary medication when the resident, who had pain level parameters for the administration of a controlled narcotic, did not receive the medication unless the pain level parameters were met. This affected one resident (#46) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, resident record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered by the physician and using standards of care resulting in a medication error rate greater than 5% (error rate of 14.81%). This affected one resident (#26) of two residents observed for medication administration. There were 27 opportunities for medication error and four medication errors resulting in a 14.81% medication error. The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Dakins Solution half strength used for wound care was dated when opened. This had the potential to affect three residents who had an active skin wound (#13, #24, and #26). The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store and date food in a safe manner. This had the potential to affect 44 of 44 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident financial record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to adequately notify residents and/or representative of the possibility of lost Medicaid eligibility for reaching and exceeding the maximum amount within their resident funds accounts. This affected two (Resident #34 and Resident #48) of six residents whose financial records were reviewed. The census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) records when the initial PASRR document was not correct. This affected two (Resident #7 and Resident #29) of three residents reviewed for PASRR. The census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to inform the state mental health agency of a significant change in Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) records. This affected two (Resident #7 and Resident #29) of three residents reviewed for PASRR. The census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to identify and monitor bruises for Resident #27 in a timely manner. This affected one of four residents reviewed for non pressure skin impairment. The facility census was 45.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a palm guard was offered and passive range of motion was completed for Resident #43. This affected one of three residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility census was 45.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement pharmacy medication regimen review recommendations approved by the physician in a timely manner for Resident #45. This affected one (Resident #45) of five residents whose pharmacy recommendations were reviewed. The census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed have proper parameters for as needed pain medications for Residents #45 and #27, and failed to provide medications as written per the physician for Resident #45. This affected two (Resident #45 and Resident #27) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 44.
8 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 26, 2026, 2 on May 20, 2024, 3 on May 12, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 18, 2024 | Fine | $13,627 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 3.02 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.86 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.78 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.50 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.66 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.6% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.76 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 3.12 on weekdays and 2.78 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.92 in April to June 2025 to 3.02 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 | 3.02 | 0.86 | 3.12 | 2.78 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 40 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.85 | 0.74 | 2.96 | 2.57 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 43 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.93 | 0.76 | 2.99 | 2.79 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 42 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.92 | 0.65 | 3.00 | 2.71 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 43 |
| 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 | 2.7 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.0 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Arcadia Valley Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (38.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.6% 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. 31 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 44 eligible stays.
9.4% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 25 eligible stays.
64.0% 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. 25 residents counted.
2.8% 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. 36 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 36 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. 11 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: ARCADIA VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & REHABILITATION INC. CMS links this home to Continuing Healthcare Solutions, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miller, Michael | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2026 | |
| Bunner, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 05/11/2012 | |
| Mallett, Christopher | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2013 | |
| Parsons, Benjamin | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2013 | |
| Sprenger, Mark | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Sprenger, Timothy | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2013 | |
| Hughey, Tracy | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2026 | |
| Kauffman, Kevin | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Boyer Miller, Kayle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/25/2024 | |
| Kauffman, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Montgomery, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2021 | |
| Kauffman, Kevin | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/13/2026 | |
| Miller, Michael | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2026 | |
| Boyer Miller, Kayle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/13/2026 | |
| Hughey, Tracy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/15/2013 | |
| Montgomery, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2021 |
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.