920 Thurber Drive West, Columbus, OH 43215 · Franklin County · (614) 464-2273
104 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1975
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365315 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 22, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since March 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $196,256 in the last three years; the largest was $196,256, and the latest is dated October 29, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.33 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.52 of those hours.
58.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Garden Healthcare Group, 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe, comfortable, and homelike environment. This had the potential to affect all 91 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the food was prepared and stored in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all but two residents who the facility identified did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions, and failed to ensure intravenous (IV) bags were properly secured and not on lying on a soiled surface. This affected one (Resident #3) of 14 residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions and had the potential to affect 34 residents identified by the facility on enhanced barrier precautions. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure antipsychotic medications were used for an indicated diagnosis. This affected one, Resident (#73) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of verbal abuse. This affected one, Resident (#2) out of five residents reviewed for freedom from abuse, neglect, and misappropriation. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a follow up appointment was scheduled in a timely manner for Resident #49. This affected one resident out of seven reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's water management plan, staff interview, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Toolkit for Controlling Legionella in Common Sources of Exposure (Legionella Control Toolkit), the facility failed to have an adequate water management plan. This had the potential to affect all 93 residents residing in the facility. The census was 93.
Inspectors wrote4. Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed an admission date of 05/19/23, with diagnoses of major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, schizophrenia, psychoactive substance abuse, anxiety, insomnia and unspecified mood disorder. Review of the care plan dated 10/27/23 revealed Resident #59 has diagnoses of anxiety with an intervention of maintaining a calm environment. Review of MDS assessment completed 01/17/25 revealed Resident #59 has a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident is cognitively intact. Review of functional abilities section revealed the resident requires supervision or touching assistance with oral hygiene, toileting, and personal hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review, observations, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility did not have proper personal protective equipment in the laundry room to manage infectious material. Also, the facility did not follow proper isolation procedures for Resident #89. This had the potential to affect 87 residents of 89 residents in the facility. The facility identified two residents (#13 and #43) who did not have the facility launder their items. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to allow residents to refuse treatment without the threat of being discharged from the facility. This affected one (Resident #201) of two residents reviewed for dignity/rights. The census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all resident Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents were accurate to resident current conditions and diagnoses. This affected three (#3, #15, and #59) of four residents reviewed for PASARR documents. The census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all significant mental health changes were communicated to the state mental health agency. This affected three (#3, #15, and #59) of four residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents. The census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure weekly weights were obtained per physician orders. This affected two (#77 and #92) of five reviewed for nutritional monitoring. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of hospital records and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's respiratory needs were being met. This affected the one resident (#196) of one resident reviewed for oxygen use. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff interviews and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure communication between the facility and dialysis vendor regarding dialysis treatments was on going for continuity of care. This affected one (#24) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. Seven residents currently receive dialysis treatments. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide parameters for as needed pain medication. This affected one (#3) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 89. Findings Include: Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed an admission on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included acute bronchitis, epileptic seizures, pulmonary embolism, post traumatic stress disorder, conversion disorder, phantom limb syndrome, bipolar disorder, unspecified protein calorie malnutrition, hypothyroidism, hypertension, other cervical disc degeneration, vitamin D deficiency, insomnia, atrial fibrillation, nonrheumatic mitral valve prolapse, muscle weakness, hypotension, repeated falls, pain, type II diabetes, depression, macular degeneration, hypermetropia, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, acquired absence of right leg below knee, and epilepsy. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to secure and store medications appropriately. This affected one (#72) of 24 residents observed during the annual survey. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility investigations, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse and misappropriation had thorough investigations and documentation of the investigation. This affected three residents (#86, #94, and #95) out of four residents reviewed for allegations of abuse and misappropriation. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, record review and policy review, the facility failed to implement infection control procedures during a dressing change and while storing soiled laundry. This affected one (Resident #92) of three residents reviewed for wounds and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff and resident interviews, review of plumbing invoices, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, and sanity environment in the shower room for the B hallway. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 93. Findings Include: Review of the plumbing company invoice #143340436 dated 11/12/24 revealed plumbing company arrived at the customers property for a shower drain back up. After attempting to cable the shower drain, the blockage was removed and restored flow to the drain. Review of the plumbing company invoice #143544314 dated 11/13/24 revealed the facility was experiencing emergency flooding in the B hallway over the course of three days. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility staff interviews, review of the fire investigation report, observation of facility video camera footage, review of the facility submitted Self-Reported Incident (SRI), and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from neglect when staff did not timely implement fire procedures when a mattress/bedding fire occurred in Resident #19's room. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening harm, injuries, negative health outcomes and/or death when on 09/26/24 at 11:46 P.M. a fire occurred in Resident #19's room which ignited the resident's mattress/bedding on fire, activating the fire alarm and sprinkler system and facility staff did not attempt to immediately implement fire protocols to rescue, contain and/or extinguish the fire in Resident #19's room until 11:53 P.M. on 09/26/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, facility staff interviews, resident interviews, family interviews, review of a fire drill report, review of emergency response reports, review of report of fire email communication, review of facility video camera footage, review of hospital records, review of the fire investigation report, and review of the facility policies for smoking and Oxygen Administration, the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained as free from accident hazards as is possible when one resident (#19), who utilized oxygen therapy and who smoked cigarettes, possessed smoking materials, including cigarettes and a cigarette lighter, in her room. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening harm, injuries, negative health outcomes and/or death when on 09/26/24 at 11:46 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, observation of facility video footage, review of the facility submitted Self-Reported Incident (SRI), and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an incident of potential neglect when the facility failed to timely implement fire protocol regarding rescuing residents, containing the fire and extinguishing and evacuating residents. This affected one Resident (#19) who had a fire in her room on 09/26/24 and had the potential to affect the other nine residents (Resident #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #20, #21, #22, and #23) living in the same smoke compartment as Resident #19. The total facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, staff interviews, review of facility camera footage, observation, review of a job description, review of the facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI), and facility policy review, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled the facility to utilize available resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This included failure to prevent neglect of residents by staff during a fire that occurred on 09/26/24, failure to ensure residents utilizing oxygen therapy were not able to possess lighters and smoking materials unsupervised, failure to timely and appropriately implement emergency procedures, when a fire occurred in Resident #19's room and ignited the resident's mattress/bedding on fire which ultimately activated the sprinkler system, including: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place. This affected one (Resident #22) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of the facility policy the facility failed to maintain proper infection control measures during medication administration. This affected two (Residents #22) of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility also failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) when appropriate. This one resident (Resident #28) of three residents reviewed for isolation precautions. The facility census was 95 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and photographs, the facility was not maintained in a clean, homelike environment and was not in good repair. This affected all 87 residents residing in the facility. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to assist one female resident with shaving her face. This affected one resident (#44) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered without significant errors. This affected one (Resident #96) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the contact information for the practitioner responsible for the care of the resident, resident representative information, advanced directives information, all special instructions or precautions for ongoing care and all other necessary information to ensure a safe and effective transition of care was communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider upon transfer/discharge. This affected three (Residents #90, #91, and #92) out of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident representatives were notified of medication changes. This affected one (Resident #1) out of three residents reviewed for medications. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a recapitulation of a resident's stay when the resident had a planned discharge. This affected one (Resident #93) out of one sampled resident who had a planned discharge to the community. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to routinely assess pressure ulcers as well as ensure wound assessments included a description of the wound. This affected three (#48, #92, and #93) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Additionally, the facility failed to initiate treatment for a pressure ulcer in a timely manner. This affected one (#92) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure there was a receipt of disposition for narcotic pain medication upon discharge from the facility. This affected one (Resident #93) out of one resident reviewed for planned discharge. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to complete quarterly care conferences for residents. This affected two (Residents #16 and #18) of two residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, hospital staff interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident attended scheduled medical appointments. This affected one (Resident #71) of three residents reviewed for medical appointments. The census was 87.
31 fire safety citations on file: 5 on April 22, 2026, 1 on February 4, 2026, 6 on March 6, 2025, 3 on January 13, 2025, 5 on November 19, 2024, 5 on October 29, 2024, 6 on March 16, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 29, 2024 | Fine | $196,256 |
| October 29, 2024 | Payment Denial | 49 days from November 27, 2024 |
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) | 3.33 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.52 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.90 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.93 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.88 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 58.5% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.37 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 3.50 on weekdays and 2.90 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.42 in April to June 2025 to 3.33 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 | 3.33 | 0.52 | 3.50 | 2.90 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.34 | 0.43 | 3.53 | 2.88 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.40 | 0.31 | 3.58 | 2.95 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.42 | 0.28 | 3.61 | 2.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 89 |
| 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.
| 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 | 0.0 | 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 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Capital City Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing Ce's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.0% 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. 28 eligible stays.
9.5% 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. 32 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 17 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. 15 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. 15 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. 3 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: GARDEN REHAB AND HEALTH CARE AT VICTORIAN VILLAGE LLC. CMS links this home to Garden Healthcare Group, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chickiestrong Victorian Village LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 80% | 12/30/2016 |
| Gamzeh, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 12/30/2016 |
| Glatzer, Akiva | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 12/30/2016 |
| Ishwar, Kimberly | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Gamzeh, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Lahasky, Ephram | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Leshkowitz, Eli | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Garden Healthcare Group LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/30/2016 |
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.