670 E Sr 18, Tiffin, OH 44883 · Seneca County · (419) 447-7151
93 certified beds, about 89 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365380 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 22, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since October 2022, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $28,340 in the last three years; the largest was $28,340, and the latest is dated April 22, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.79 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.63 of those hours.
45.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Garden Springs Healthcare, an affiliated group of 6 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure commons areas on the secured memory care unit were maintained to provide a homelike environment. This affected all 14 residents (#13, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, and #35) on the memory care unit. The facility census was 89. Findings Include:Observation on 07/27/26 at 4:12 P.M. on the secured unit revealed two common areas where residents watched television or interacted. One was painted a dark green/blue and the paint was missing, exposing white wall, around most of the perimeter of the room approximately at the height where the backs of chairs would rub. Interview on 07/29/26 at 10:35 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, review of the facility's investigation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed when a resident was injured during a transfer using a mechanical lift. This affected one (#17) of three residents reviewed for transfers via mechanical lift. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure diet orders, including limited fluids, were provided per physician orders. This affected one (#12) of three residents reviewed for specialized diet orders. The facility census was 89. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 07/16/26 with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, fracture of thoracic vertebra, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the nursing admission Assessment, initiated 07/16/26 and completed 07/18/26, revealed Resident #12 was alert and oriented to person, place and time and was ambulatory. Review of a nursing progress note, dated 07/19/26, revealed the physician was notified of family concerns and requests. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors and further failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This resulted in Actual physical harm and emotional distress for one (#10) resident on 04/19/26 at 10:17 A.M. when Resident #10 verbalized being distraught about not receiving her anti-anxiety medication (Ativan) because the facility had run out and she had not received the evening dose (to be administered between 3:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.) on 04/18/26 and the early dose (to be administered between 5:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M.) on 04/19/26, and she was observed to be shaking, tearful and in emotional distress requiring staff intervention. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure state survey results were available without having to request them. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure notice of the availability of the state survey results were posted in prominent and accessible areas for the residents/public. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), review of the National Institute of Health website, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded. This affected three residents (#12, #52, and #76) and had the potential to affect six residents (#12, #14, #30, #47, #52, #76) the facility identified as being invasive ventilator dependent. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and labeled in accordance with professional standards. This had the potential to affected all facility residents. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, resident interview, review of the test tray, and policy review, the facility failed to provide palatable food. This had the potential to affect 87 residents who receive food from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#1) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents on the Memory Care unit preferences regarding meals were identified and honored. This affected 15 residents (#9, #11, #16, #18, #33, #35, #48, #55, #56, #58, #60, #61, #76, #81, and #83) who resided on the Memory Care unit and received food from the kitchen. The census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure snacks were available and offered to residents. This had the potential to affect 87 residents who were able to receive snacks. The facility identified one resident (#1) as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food that was open was properly stored. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure eggs that were served undercooked were pasteurized. This had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food from the kitchen, the facility identified one resident (#1) as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the exterminator reports, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure effective pest control. This had the potential to affect 15 residents (#9, #11, #16, #18, #33, #35, #48, #55, #56, #58, #60, #61, #76, #81, and #83) residing on the Memory Care unit. The census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure a resident who was determined unable to self-administer medications did not self-administer nebulizer treatments. This affected one (#04) of one resident reviewed for medication self-administration. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, resident interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely physician notification of medication unavailability for two residents (#10 and #19) of three residents reviewed for physician notification. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and facility policy review revealed the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received proper grooming. This affected two (#56, #85) of four residents reviewed for assistance of daily living (ADL) care. The facility identified all residents residing in the facility as being dependent for ADL care. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide bed hold notice to residents being sent to the hospital. This affected one (#6) of three residents reviewed for bed hold notices. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication order was complete and accurate and further failed to ensure the medication order was transcribed correctly to make certain Resident #10 was administered the correct medication. Actual Harm occurred when an incomplete verbal order for a critically low potassium level (2.7 milliequivalents per liter [mEq/L] with normal potassium blood serum measuring between 3.5 and 5.5 mEq/L) was transcribed and medication administered inaccurately, resulting in Resident #10 receiving a medication to remove potassium from the blood rather than a medication to replace potassium (low potassium could result in cardiac arrhythmia, numbness, tingling, muscle weakness, spasms, and or muscle damage). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 77 residents in the facility, Resident #52 received no food by mouth and thus received no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the manufactures instructions for the dishwasher, review of dishwasher temperature logs, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the dishwashing machine was maintained in a safe operating condition. This had the potential to affect 77 residents in the facility, Resident #52 received no food by mouth and no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the dryers in the facility laundry room were cleaned appropriately. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a well-maintained environment. This affected two residents (Resident #24 and Resident #68) of two residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure shower preferences were honored. This affected one (#18) of one resident reviewed for showers. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided quarterly statements for their personal funds. This affected one (#20) of one resident reviewed for personal funds. The facility identified 54 residents with personal funds accounts. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely notify the physician and resident representative of a resident change in condition. This affected one (Resident #30) of two residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, and staff interview the facility failed to maintain comfortable sound levels in the dining room on the secured unit. This affected one resident (#59) and had the potential to affect the 12 residents who resided on the secured unit. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was complete with current resident condition. This affected one (Resident #20) of two residents reviewed for comprehensive care planning. The census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident (#20) was provided compression stockings as physician ordered. This affected one (Resident #20) of one resident observed for compression stockings. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents had their tube feed running at the ordered rate. This affected one resident (#52) of one resident reviewed. The facility identified one resident who received nutrition via tube feeding in the facility. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, revealed the facility failed to ensure medical staff completed accurate documentation regarding a resident's compression stocking application. This affected one (Resident #20) of one resident reviewed for documentation. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident's catheter collection bags were maintained off the floor and in a safe and sanitary manner. This affected two residents (#56 and #39) of two residents reviewed with indwelling catheters. In addition, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in a safe and sanitary manner. This affected two residents (#56 and #69). The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, staff interview, cardiologist progress notes, policy review, and review of facility corrective action, the facility failed to adequately monitor the placement of a resident's cardiac defibrillator external heart monitor. This affected one (#57) of one resident reviewed for implanted defibrillators. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on family and staff interview, interview with the Long Term Care Ombudsman, interview with hospital staff, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide the required documentation when a resident was initially transferred to the hospital for evaluation and treatment and the resident was later discharged from the facility. The facility also failed to ensure there was necessary reasons to transfer the resident to the hospital. This affected one (Resident #76) of three residents reviewed for discharges. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on family and staff interview, interview with hospital staff, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide the resident and the resident's representative of the appropriate written notice upon discharge. This affected one (Resident #76) of three residents reviewed for discharges. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on family and staff interview, interview with the Long Term Care Ombudsman, interview with hospital staff, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to allow Resident #76 to return to the facility following a therapeutic leave to an acute, inpatient, geriatric psychiatric facility. This affected one (Resident #76) of three residents reviewed for discharges. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place. This affected one (#11) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, physician interview, review of the hospital records, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure early identification of a change in the resident's condition. This resulted in Actual Harm when Resident #41, who was taking an anticoagulant medication, experienced a moderate amount of blood in the stool during a bowel movement. A thorough assessment and immediate notification to the physician was not completed. Subsequently, approximately 33 hours later the resident was hospitalized and received three units of packed red blood cells for a critical low hemoglobin level. This affected one (Resident #41) of one resident reviewed for anticoagulant therapy. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of the staff schedules, and review of the facility unit staffing guidelines, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff on the secured memory care unit to provide resident care. This directly affected two residents (#64 and #66) and had the potential to affect all 12 residents (#09, #12, #13, #19, #23, #54, #55, #59, #60, #63, #64 and #66) out of 12 residents residing on the secured memory care unit. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods kept in the refrigerator and freezer on the memory care unit were properly stored, labeled, and dated. This had the potential to affect 12 residents (#09, #12, #13, #19, #23, #54, #55, #59, #60, #63, #64 and #66) out of 12 residents residing on the secured memory care unit. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms and common areas were kept in good repair. This had the potential to affect all 73 residents of the facility. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, family and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure notification was made to the physician, dietician, and the resident representative of a significant weight loss. This affected two residents (#04 and #34) out of two residents reviewed for notification of change in status. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide privacy for one resident (#40) out of three reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The facility census was 73. Findings Include: Review of Resident #40's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included spastic hemiplegia, epilepsy, falls, and foot drop. Review of the 08/04/22 annual minimum data set (MDS) revealed Resident #40 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors or refusals of care, required extensive assist with bed mobility, toilet use, personal hygiene and was dependent for on staff for transfers. Resident #40 was coded as not having a pressure ulcer. Observation of incontinence care provided by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #502 and #503 on 09/28/22 at 10:02 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care to include a resident's pressure ulcer. This affected one resident (#64) out of 18 records reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed ensure timely revision of the care plan. This affected one resident (#40) out of one reviewed for position/mobility out of 18 care plans reviewed. The facility census was 73. Findings Include: Review of Resident #40's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included spastic hemiplegia, epilepsy, falls, and foot drop. Review of the 08/04/22 annual minimum data set revealed Resident #40 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors or refusals of care, required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for transfers. A splint device was coded as zero days. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) shower documentation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received showers as scheduled. This affected two residents (#64 and #66) out of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure planned fall interventions were implemented. This affected two residents (#04 and #37) out of four resident reviewed for falls. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medial record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure weights were monitored per facility policy and failed to track meal intakes as care planned. This affected one (#4) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. In addition, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained per physician order. This affected one (#34) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was applied per physician order. This affected one resident (#33) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to timely act on pharmacy recommendations. This affected two residents (#28 and #03) out of eight residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 73. Findings Include: Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus type two. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 was cognitively intact, had behaviors directed toward others four to six days of the review period, required extensive assistance with dressing, limited assist with toilet use and bed mobility and supervision with transfers, eating, and personal hygiene. Resident #28 had seven days of injections: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure access and availability of therapy records in a resident's medical record. This affected one resident (#04) out of one resident reviewed for therapy services. The facility census was 73.
31 fire safety citations on file: 10 on April 22, 2026, 13 on December 12, 2024, 8 on October 4, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 22, 2026 | Fine | $28,340 |
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) | 3.79 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.35 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.01 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.5% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 16.7% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.11 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 3.97 on weekdays and 3.35 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 20.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.39 in April to June 2025 to 3.79 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 | 3.79 | 0.63 | 3.97 | 3.35 | 20.2% | 0 of 90 | 89 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.83 | 0.63 | 4.02 | 3.37 | 14.5% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.73 | 0.57 | 3.94 | 3.19 | 14.7% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.39 | 0.58 | 3.61 | 2.82 | 2.3% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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 | 3.4 | 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 | 5.5 | 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 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.5 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumnwood Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.8% 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. 41 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 80 eligible stays.
7.1% 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. 36 eligible stays.
28.9% 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. 45 residents counted.
3.2% 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. 63 residents counted.
8.2% 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. 63 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. 5 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: 670 OH OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Garden Springs Healthcare, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oheads Opco Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/20/2024 |
| Rap 118 LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 15% | 06/20/2024 |
| Yfr Equities LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 5% | 06/20/2024 |
| Friedman, Matis | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 06/20/2024 |
| Mahilnitski, Ilya | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 15% | 06/20/2024 |
| Strauss, Jennifer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Barenbaum, Alyssa | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Friedman, Gitty | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Akers, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Franklin, Nuel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Friedman, Matis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Mahilnitski, Ilya | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Oheads Opco Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/02/2025 | |
| Rap 118 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/20/2024 | |
| Yfr Equities LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/20/2024 | |
| Akers, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Franklin, Nuel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/20/2020 | |
| Friedman, Matis | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/20/2024 | |
| Mahilnitski, Ilya | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/20/2024 |
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.