8885 Browning Drive, Waterville, OH 43566 · Lucas County · (419) 878-8523
99 certified beds, about 75 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365617 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 19, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 39 health citations since January 2022 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 3.47 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.38 of those hours.
44.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Ayden Healthcare, an affiliated group of 11 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 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity while receiving feeding assistance. This affected one (#112) of three residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide timely repositioning for dependent residents. This affected two (#112 and #113) of three residents reviewed for repositioning. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care. This affected two (#112 and #113) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods were prepared and stored in a safe manner to prevent spoilage and contamination and failed to maintain the kitchen environment in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 72 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified four (#1, #44, #50, and #74) residents who received no food by mouth and no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility water management plan, review of facility policies, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Legionella control guidance, the facility failed to ensure measures to prevent the growth of Legionella were implemented, failed to ensure urinary catheter drainage bags were maintained in a manner to prevent infection, failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment was worn during high-contact care interactions for residents on enhanced barrier precautions, and failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was maintained and performed during resident interactions involving potential exposure to bodily fluids. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 76 residents residing in the facility. The census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided a call light that accommodated the resident's needs. This affected one (#7) of one residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were bathed per their scheduled preference. This affected one (#46) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring for psychotropic medication effectiveness, side effects, and adverse effects was completed. This affected two (#2 and #3) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of electronic mail (email) documents, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided a safe and appropriate discharge. This affected one (#84) of three residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer prevention measures were in place as ordered. This affected one (#11) of one residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to receiving an as-needed pain medication. This affected one (#63) of one residents reviewed for pain. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility guidelines, the facility failed to ensure resident-specific interventions were implemented to address a resident's history of trauma. This affected three (#63, #13 and #2) of three residents reviewed for trauma informed care and treatment. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician order. This affected one (#63) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a secure manner. This affected one (#9) of one residents reviewed for hemodialysis and related care. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident representative interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure diagnostic testing results were obtained and communicated in a timely manner. This affected one (#44) of one residents reviewed for diagnostic testing. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medical record was complete to include communication with a dialysis provider. This affected one (#9) of one residents reviewed for hemodialysis. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) received adequate assistance with personal hygiene. This affected one (#16) of three residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary, and homelike environment. This had the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility. The census was 72. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #64 revealed an admission date of 07/19/24 and diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of lower third of esophagus, hypothyroidism, diabetes mellitus type two, protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatitis C, morbid obesity, bacteremia, and hypertension. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #64 revealed a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating Resident #64 was cognitively intact. Interview on 10/07/24 at 8:01 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility investigation, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure incidents of potential neglect related to elopement of cognitively impaired residents were reported to the state agency. This affected one resident (#3) of three residents reviewed for risk of elopement. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent resident elopement for residents identified as at risk for elopement. This affected one resident (#3) of three residents reviewed for being at risk for wandering and elopement. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, facility exterminator interview, and review of facility exterminator treatments, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program for bed bugs. This affected one resident (#9) of three residents reviewed for pest control. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to document meal intakes per dietician recommendation and care plan intervention to monitor for weight status. This affected two (#35 and #61) of three residents reviewed for weight loss. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed for self administration and physician orders were obtained to self administer. This affected one (#43) of one resident observed to have medications at the bedside. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure proper and timely notice was given to residents when they were discharged from skilled service. This affected two (#63 and #79) of three sampled residents who were discharge from skilled services in the past six months. The facility census was 75. Findings Include: Review of the Beneficiary Notification for Resident #63 revealed Resident #63 began Medicare Part A services on 09/20/23 and his last covered day was 10/19/23. A Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form CMS 10123 was documented as not provided. In addition, Resident #63 remained in the facility and a skilled nursing facility advanced beneficiary notice of non-coverage (ABN) form CMS-1005 was not provided. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plans were revised to include supports and interventions to address communication needs. This affected two (#6 and #46) of three residents reviewed for communication. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for care received personal hygiene care as desired. This affected one (#6) of two resident's reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place and residents received post fall assessments as required. This affected two (#36 and #55) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident received enteral feeding (delivery of nutrients through a feeding tube directly into the stomach, duodenum, or jejunum) per physicians orders. This affected one (Resident #31) of one resident reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility identified six residents that required total nutrition by enteral feeding. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain appropriate emergency tracheostomy supplies at the bedside of a resident with a tracheostomy. This affected one (#53) of two residents reviewed for tracheostomy and ventilator. The facility identified six residents that required tracheostomy emergency supplies at the bedside. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop interventions for dementia care. This affected one (Resident #64) of one resident reviewed for dementia care. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents rooms were clean and provided with clean linen. This affected three (#28, #44, and #64) of three residents reviewed for physical environment. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary environment. This affected six (Residents #53, #74, #78, #79, #81, and #82) of six residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, and facility policy the facility failed to ensure clean and sufficient laundry was available to residents. This affected three (Residents #60, #64, and #68) of three residents reviewed. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident's received timely assistance with eating. This affected one (Resident #59) of three residents reviewed for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place. This affected one (Resident #57) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, review of menu, and policy review, the facility failed to provided residents with the proper size meal portions as directed by the facility dietician. This affected 35 residents who received the turkey pot pie meal and did not affect 29 (#9, #10, #13, #18, #20, #24, #25, #26, #27, #29, #33, #40, #42, #43, #46, #50, #51, #52, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #60 #61, #62, #63, #64, and #65) residents who received alternate meat or does not receive meal service. The facility census was 64.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an adequate pest control program. This affected one (#40) of four resident rooms observed for pest control. The facility census was 64.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to store food items in a safe and sanitary manner. This affected 52 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified eight (#3, #5, #9, #18, #27, #49, #51, #58) residents who have orders for nothing by mouth and receive no food or drinks from the kitchen. The census was 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in a sanitary manner. This affected one (#57) of five residents observed during medication administration. The census was 60.
33 fire safety citations on file: 17 on March 19, 2026, 12 on March 13, 2024, 4 on January 6, 2022.
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) | 3.47 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.38 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.17 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.23 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.9% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.11 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 3.60 on weekdays and 3.17 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.60 in April to June 2025 to 3.47 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 | 3.47 | 0.38 | 3.60 | 3.17 | 0.5% | 0 of 90 | 75 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.72 | 0.39 | 3.88 | 3.31 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 71 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.54 | 0.40 | 3.71 | 3.09 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 71 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.60 | 0.44 | 3.78 | 3.16 | 0.0% | 1 of 91 | 68 |
| 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 | 7.4 | 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 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 8.8 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.0 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ayden Healthcare of Waterville's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.5% 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. 30 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. 41 eligible stays.
6.7% 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.
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: 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. 9 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: 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. 14 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: 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. 14 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. 2 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: BUCKEYE FOREST AT WATERVILLE. CMS links this home to Ayden Healthcare, a group of 11 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buckeye Family Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 51% | 12/31/2025 |
| Aschendorf, Jonathan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Kaplan, Yisroel | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/31/2021 | |
| Buckeye Family Trust | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/31/2025 | |
| Aschendorf, Jonathan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Brickman, Kristopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Kahle, Kimberly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/22/2024 | |
| Kaplan, Yisroel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2021 | |
| Lahasky, Ephram | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2025 | |
| Aschendorf, Jonathan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Brickman, Kristopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Kahle, Kimberly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/22/2024 |
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.