Home / Ohio / Canal Winchester
6800 Gender Road, Canal Winchester, OH 43110 · Fairfield County · (614) 834-6800
124 certified beds, about 111 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2018
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366462 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 17, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 54 health citations since June 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $26,685 in the last three years; the largest was $26,685, and the latest is dated April 2, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.53 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
43.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Optalis Health & Rehabilitation, an affiliated group of 36 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 54 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, Food Committee Minute review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food temperatures were monitored to prevent food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors This affected one resident (Resident #111) of three residents reviewed for medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure meal intakes were documented for one resident (#111) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure hairnets were worn properly by kitchen staff to protect food from potential contamination. This had the potential to affect all residents except one (Resident #2) who did not receive food from the kitchen due to an active NPO (nothing by mouth) order. The facility census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain dignity during meal time. This affected one (Resident #28) of seven residents observed in the dining room. The census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy on bed hold, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy in writing. This affected one resident (Resident #133) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that included Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy (a device that delivers air pressure using a mask to keep the airway open while sleeping). This affected one (Resident #91) of two residents reviewed for CPAP therapy. The census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility activity calendar, the facility failed to provide meaningful activities to all residents. This affected two (Residents #44 and #101) of six residents reviewed for activities. The census was 112. Findings Include:1. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses were chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, vitamin D deficiency, disorder of muscle, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease, end stage renal disease, Type II Diabetes, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, rhabdomyolysis, hypoosmolality and hyponatremia, acute kidney failure, hypothyroidism, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypotension, muscle weakness, dyspnea, hypertension, insomnia, edema, osteoarthritis, and constipation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and observations this facility failed to ensure post appointment instructions were followed this affected one (Resident #101) of one resident reviewed for follow up care. The facility also failed to ensure Thrombo-Embolism Deterrent (TED) hose were in place as ordered. This affected two (Resident #80 and #91) of the two residents reviewed for TED hose placement. The facility census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to implement and/or follow physician orders to treat pressure injuries. This affected two residents, (Resident #126 and Resident #91), of four residents reviewed for pressure injury management. The facility census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility nutrition policies, the facility failed to ensure one ( Resident #66) did not experience a significant weight loss and failed to ensure one ( Resident #92's) fluid restriction was followed. This affected two of seven residents (#14, #36, #44, #66, #92, #10, and #10) reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for oxygenation therapy for Resident #06 and continuous positive airway pressure, (CPAP) use for Resident #36. This affected two residents, (Residents #06 and #36) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 112. Findings Include:1. Record review for Resident #06 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: cerebral infarction, diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, anxiety, depression, congestive heart failure and choric obstructive pulmonary disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident had intact cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to timely and thoroughly address all pharmacy recommendations. This affected two (Residents #7 and #3) of five residents reviewed for pharmacy recommendations. The census was 112. Findings Include:1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses were acute respiratory failure, non-displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, disorder of muscle, acute pulmonary edema, other acute osteomyelitis, cardiomyopathy, hypokalemia, peripheral vascular disease, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (stage IV), atherosclerotic heart disease, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, Type II Diabetes, ischemic cardiomyopathy, anxiety disorder, shortness of breath, depression, obesity, insomnia, muscle weakness, hypertension, edema, and umbilical hernia. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure transmission based precautions and personal protective equipment usage were followed as required. This had the potential to affect 21 (Residents #44, #15, #22, #27, #122, #137, #61, #138, #89, #13, #24, #114, #62, #58, #23, #115, #56, #38, #126, #90, and #66) of 112 residents in the facility. Also, the facility failed to use proper hand hygiene after administering medications and performing wound care treatment. This affected two (Residents #73 and #91) of six residents reviewed for infection control practices. The census was 112. Findings Include:1. Observations on 02/09/26 at 7:05 P.M. revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #116 was in Resident #61's room with a mask around their chin. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed maintain a safe environment free of hazardous chemicals for one (Resident #97) of 17 residents on the 300 hall way. The census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent falls. This affected two residents (Resident #15 and Resident #120) out of five residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 100 residents.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, record review, review of hospital records, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure fall risk/safety interventions were in place to prevent falls for one resident (#103) with known history of falls from bed. Actual harm occurred on 04/20/25 when Resident #103 who had a severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance from two staff for bed mobility sustained a fall out of bed resulting in hospitalization and surgical repair for a nondisplaced intertrochanteric fracture with of left femur when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #800 left the room with the resident's bed in high position and the fall mat leaned against the wall to retrieve personal care supplies in the facility supply room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide timely care for surgical incision staple removal for Resident #103 and Resident #109. The facility also failed to obtain physician ordered daily weights for Resident #83. This affected two residents (#103 and #109) of three residents reviewed for wound/incisional care and one resident (#83) of three residents reviewed for implementation of physician orders. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, skin assessments and interviews, the facility failed to ensure skin breakdown prevention interventions were in place. This affected one resident (#103) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 108. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #103 revealed an initial admission date of 08/15/22 with the latest readmission of 04/26/25 with the diagnoses including but not limited to nondisplaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, sick sinus syndrome, anemia, mood disorder, contracture of muscle, multiple sites, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, overactive bladder, cerebrovascular accident with left sided hemiplegia, anxiety disorder, insomnia, depression, adult failure to thrive, osteoarthritis, constipation, personal history of traumatic brain injury and hypertension. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely notification to the resident and medical practitioner regarding a change in the resident's condition and need to alter the resident's treatmet plan. This affected one resident (#98) of nine residents reviewed for notification. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review the facility failed to develop a comprehensive resident centered pressure ulcer prevention care plan for one resident (#107) of five reviewed for prevention of alterations in skin integrity. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow proper infection control and isolation precaution procedures. This affected four (Residents #18, #77, #80, and #81) of four residents reviewed for infection control procedures. The facility census was 102. Findings Include: Observations on 02/20/25 from 10:30 to 10:40 A.M. revealed Resident #77 and Resident #80 had personal protective equipment (PPE) carts in front of each of their rooms. But there were no signs outside of their doors indicating if they were actually on isolation precautions or what type of isolation precautions they were on. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #103 on 02/20/25 at 10:35 A.M. confirmed Residents #77 and #80 were on contact/droplet isolation precautions for being diagnosed with influenza. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the facility self-reported incident (SRI), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected one (Resident #71) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 102. Findings Include: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, acute cystitis, hypothyroidism, type II diabetes, vitamin D deficiency, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, atrial fibrillation, lymphedema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), insomnia, chronic kidney disease, myopia, mood disorder, hypertension, depression, bipolar disorder, morbid obesity, and dependent on supplemental oxygen. Review of her Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 01/13/25, revealed she was cognitively intact. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, hospice staff interview, review of hospice visits notes and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program to timely identify, assess and implement treatment for Resident #51 related to a pressure ulcer to the left lateral foot. Actual harm occurred on 08/09/24 when Resident #51, who was cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for activity of daily living care was first identified by the facility to have an unstageable (full-thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because the wound bed is obscured by slough or eschar) pressure ulcer to the left lateral foot. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31's call light was answered in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#31) of seven sampled residents. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations of photographs, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin for one resident (#51) with facial bruising who was dependent on staff to the required state agency. This affected one (Resident #51) of one resident reviewed for injury of unknown origin. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations of photographs, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely investigate an injury of unknown origin for one resident (#51) with facial bruising who was dependent on staff. This affected one (Resident #51) of one resident reviewed for injury of unknown origin. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for one resident (#43) with a known fall history. This affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an initial admission date of 05/06/19 with the diagnoses including aphasia, history of falls, chronic kidney disease, dysphagia, constipation, dry eye syndrome, pain, atrial fibrillation, hyperlipidemia, non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, dementia, major depressive disorder, hypertension, aphasia, generalized muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, retention of urine and age related nuclear cataract. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31's oxygen nasal cannula was stored in a sanitary manner. This affected one resident (#31) of seven sampled residents. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure timely availability of medication for administration for one resident (#31). This affected one (Resident #31) of three resident received for new medication. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to timely obtain a physician ordered laboratory test for one resident (#31). This affected one (Resident #31) of three reviewed for a change in condition. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interviews and review of photographs, the facility failed to maintain resident equipment in good repair or a clean and sanitary manner. This affected one resident (#31) of three sampled residents. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected one unit (500 unit) of four units. The facility census was 72. Findings Include: On 09/30/24 at 10:00 A.M., observation of Resident #31's carpeting revealed the carpet was stained with black and white spots. Interview with Resident #31 revealed the stains were present on the carpet when she was admitted and had offered to pay to have the carpeting shampooed. On 09/30/24 at 10:20 A.M., observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] (unoccupied) revealed the carpeting was stained black in multiple areas. On 09/30/24 at 10:21 A.M., observation of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed the carpeting was stained black in multiple areas. On 10/03/24 at 10:30 A.M., interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #155 verified the stained carpeting in rooms 506, 511,and Resident #31's room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff used appropriate hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19). This had the potential to affect 16 residents (#5, #7, #10, #23, #25, #26, #32, #36, #37, #41, #46, #50, #59, #60, #62 and #77) who resided in the hall where staff delivered meal trays without implementation of appropriate COVID-19 protocols. The facility identified two residents (#3 and #52) as having active COVID-19 infection. The facility census was 79 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of hospital records, resident representative interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided to residents following accidents with injury. This affected one (Resident #99) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 79 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, observation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palatable and warm temperature. The deficient practice affected four residents (#9, #10, #29, and #49) and had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen except two residents (#32 and #34) who were identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure food was properly date labeled, clean dishware was clean, and food was held at proper hot holding temperatures. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen except two residents (#32 and #34) who were identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the primary care physician (PCP) was notified of elevated blood glucose levels outside of the physician ordered parameters. This affected one resident (#16) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided for Resident #22 who was dependent on staff. This affected one resident (#22) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to identify an injury to Resident #35's left great toe and toenail. This deficient practice affected one resident (#35) out of two residents reviewed for general skin conditions. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure pressure reducing devices were in place for Resident #17. This affected one resident (#17) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Residents #16 and #68 individualized fall preventative interventions were in place. This affected two residents (#16 and #68) of five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to have a physician's order for the use of oxygen for Resident #35. This deficient practice affected one resident (#35) out of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. Twenty-nine opportunities for error were observed with three medication errors made resulting in a 10.34 percent error rate. This affected two residents (#17 and #19) of three residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to provide drinks and meals to residents in a timely/respectful manner. This affected 10 residents (#8, #13, #14, #15, #16, #35, #37, #39, #48, and #67) of 18 residents in the 300 hallway who receive meals by mouth. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility document review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide meals in a timely manner. This affected 32 residents (#3, #4, #5, #8, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #24, #30, #35, #37, #39, #43, #44, #48, #52, #58, #60, #61, #63, #64, #68, #67, #77, #181, #182, #183, #184, #185, and #186) of 32 residents who receive meals from the 100 and 300 hallways in the facility. The census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of facility policy revealed the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary manner, food was labeled and dated, and residents were not served expired food. This affected Resident #27 and had the potential to affect 77 of the 79 residents residing in the facility. The facility identified two residents (#15 and #34) who ate nothing by mouth. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, review of medical records, activities calendar, and policies, the facility failed to thoroughly assess and care plan activities and failed to ensure activities were available to two cognitively impaired residents (#61 and #68) on the weekends. This affected two residents (#61 and #68) of two residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed the follow physician orders as written. This affected one resident (#12) of 17 resident physician orders reviewed. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation and proper treatment for Resident #73's pressure ulcer and failed to ensure Resident #61's treatments for her pressure ulcer were completed and documented in the medical record. This affected two residents (#61 and #73) of four reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete weight/nutritional monitoring as needed. This affected two residents (#16 and #55) of seven residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate parameters for physician orders. This affected two residents (#17 and #10) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #68 was provided with a mechanical soft diet as ordered. This affected one resident (#68) of 17 on a mechanically altered diet. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to prevent a catheter bag from lying on the floor causing potential infection control issues. This affected one resident (#73) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility census was 79.
5 fire safety citations on file: 1 on February 17, 2026, 2 on April 18, 2024, 2 on June 28, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 2, 2025 | Fine | $26,685 |
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) | 3.53 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.31 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.89 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.16 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.6% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.1% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.67 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 3.62 on weekdays and 3.31 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 10.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.85 in April to June 2025 to 3.53 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 | 3.53 | 0.49 | 3.62 | 3.31 | 10.9% | 0 of 90 | 111 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.82 | 0.49 | 3.90 | 3.64 | 4.5% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.89 | 0.55 | 4.01 | 3.56 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.85 | 0.57 | 3.97 | 3.57 | 5.4% | 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 | 4.1 | 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 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.5 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.3 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Canal Winchester Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.5% 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. 137 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 132 eligible stays.
9.5% 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. 79 eligible stays.
83.9% 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. 62 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 87 residents counted.
2.4% 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. 87 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. 8 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: CANAL WINCHESTER CARE CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Optalis Health & Rehabilitation, a group of 36 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Om Holdco 2 LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2022 |
| Charles Franklin LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Charles Westland LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Hemant Shah 2018 Irrevocable Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Optalis LP Investors 2 LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Snw LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Campbell, Lashonda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/28/2026 | |
| Charles Franklin LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Charles Westland LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Cliftonlarsonallen LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2025 | |
| Forbright Bank | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/16/2026 | |
| Hemant Shah 2018 Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Obs of Oh LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/28/2026 | |
| Om Holdco 2 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Optalis LP Investors 2 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Paar 108 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Pinal R. Patel 2017 Irrevocable Trust F/B/O Aarna R. Patel | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Pinal R. Patel 2017 Irrevocable Trust F/B/O Ansh R. Patel | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Pinal R. Patel 2020 Irrevocable Family Trust Uad 10-6-2020 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Rajan G Patel 2020 Irr Fam Tr Uad 12-3-2020 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Snw LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Campbell, Lashonda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2026 | |
| Canowitz, Stephen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/28/2026 | |
| Foreman, Christy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/27/2026 |
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.