1058 Columbus St., Chillicothe, OH 45601 · Ross County · (740) 773-5000
99 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1982
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365576 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 10, 2026, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 39 health citations since May 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 3.23 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
34.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the floors in resident bathrooms were in good repair. This affected 19 (Residents #10, #11, #20, #23, #31, #32, #35, #37, #52, #57, #61, #65, #66, #68, #76, #79, #87, #89, and #93) residents. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature and acceptable palatability. This had the potential to affect 78 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Residents #87 and #93 as not receiving food from the kitchen. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to properly store food. This had the potential to affect 78 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Residents #87 and #93 as not receiving food from the kitchen. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, staff interview, review of facility infection surveillance logs, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents with in-house acquired Clostridium Difficile (C-Diff) infections were reviewed for patterns and trends to decrease the spread of infection. This affected seven residents (#36, #42, #52, #71, #103, #104, and #228) identified by the facility as having acquiring C-Diff infections in the facility since 11/01/2025. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications were ordered for appropriate diagnoses. This affected one resident (#7) out of five reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 80 at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address elopement risk. This affected one resident (Resident #61) of one resident reviewed for care plan accuracy. The facility identified five residents at risk for elopement. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to monitor resident's blood sugars. This had the potential to affect one (Resident #99) of 15 residents the facility identified as diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). The facility census was 80 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure wound care orders for the treatment of pressure ulcers were implemented timely and appropriately. This affected one resident (#93) out of the three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #61) was free of elopements. This affected one resident (#61) of four residents reviewed for elopements. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure tube feedings were administered at the rate ordered by the physician. This affected two residents (#87 and #93) out of the three residents reviewed for tube feeding. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure orders were in place for oxygen administration. This affected one resident (#6) out of three reviewed for oxygen administration. The facility census was 80 at the time of survey. Findings Include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type II diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and hepatic encephalopathy. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was mildly cognitively impaired with a BIMS of 08 out of 15, had no behaviors, did not reject care, and did not wander. Observation of Resident #6 on 03/02/2026 at 10:18 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record reviews, review of hospital discharge orders, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not administered longer than prescribed by the physician. This affected one resident (#103) out of the nine residents reviewed for Clostridium difficile (C-Diff) infections. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure that medications were not left unattended at a resident's bedside. This affected one resident (Resident #31) of 19 residents observed during initial observations. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor resident meal preferences. This had the potential to affect one (Resident #99) of 78 residents at the facility that receives meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Residents #87 and #93 as not receiving food from the kitchen. The facility census was 80 residents. Observation on 03/03/26 at 12:15 P.M. revealed Resident #99 received lunch meal which included beef tips and mashed potatoes with gravy. Review of Resident #99's meal ticket lists dislikes that included broccoli-cauliflower, asparagus, pork and gravy. Interview on 03/02/26 at 12:15 P.M. revealed Resident #99 waved down surveyor and stated, why give facility list of likes and dislikes if facility is not going to honor preferences. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate medical record. This affected one resident (Resident #61) of 24 residents reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility census was 80.
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, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was immediately notified of a resident's change of condition. This affected one (#120) of three residents reviewed for change of condition. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure bathroom flooring and resident room doors were maintained in a clean and safe condition. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure linens were changed upon being soiled in a timely manner. This affected eight (#20, #23, #35, #75, #235, #236, and #238) of eight residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a manner to prevent food-borne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility, with the exception of two residents (#48 and #237) identified by the facility as having no food by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident dignity was maintained during dining experiences. This affected two (#36 and #242) of two residents observed for dining. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were invited to care conferences. This affected one (#23) of one residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate records and documentation were completed and sent with the resident upon transfer to the hospital. This affected one (#13) of the three residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded. This affected one (#82) of three residents reviewed for resident assessments. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure a new skin impairment was assessed and monitored to promote healing. This affected one (#20) of four residents reviewed for skin assessments. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was appropriately assessed to identify the source of the resident's PTSD and minimize triggers and/or re-traumatization. This affected one (#48) of one residents identified by the facility as having a diagnosis of PTSD/trauma. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pharmacy recommendations, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to timely act upon pharmacy recommendations for laboratory values to be drawn. This affected one (#25) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were not greater than 5% when staff crushed extended release medications for Residents #27 and #46. This affected two (#27 and #46) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility had two errors out of 30 opportunities, for a medication error rate of 6.67%. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of dental notes, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure dental recommendations were followed-up on timely. This affected one (#23) of one residents reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to ensure residents were timely offered, provided, and educated on pneumococcal vaccinations. This affected three (#23, #25, and #58) of five residents reviewed for vaccination status. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents who received psychoactive medications identified specific target behaviors, reduced the medication when the reduction was not clinically contraindicated, and had not ruled out causes of newly emergent behaviors before administering psychoactive medications. This affected four residents (#04, #45, #46, and #55) of six sampled resident reviewed for unnecessary drugs. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure the glucometer was cleaned effectively between use. This had the potential to affect 12 residents (#27, #49, #17, #32, #35, #53, #20, #28, #215, #07, #25 and #14) of 22 residents residing on the hallway who required blood glucose monitoring. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the [NAME] Nursing Drug book, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were informed of the indication and side effects of medication to make an informed decision. This affected one resident (#12) of 20 residents reviewed. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to refer a resident with a newly evident mental disorder for a level II resident review with a significant change in status assessment. This affected one resident (#55)of six residents reviewed for pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR). The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents with diagnoses of mental disorders or intellectual disabilities were correctly identified during the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) and the facility failed to reassess residents with expired level one determinations. This affected two residents (#02 and #45) of seven residents reviewed during the annual survey for PASARR. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure care planned skin alteration prevention interventions were in place and failed to ensure residents edema was being monitored. This affected two residents (#57 and #51) out of the five residents reviewed for edema and skin conditions. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident's bed was positioned to prevent the resident from falling out of bed between the bed and the wall. This affected one resident (#04) of three sampled residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wrote3. Review of medical record for resident #02 revealed an admission date of 11/25/21. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, other recurrent depressive disorders, atrial fibrillation, dementia, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, dysphagia, and anemia. Review of Resident #02's weights revealed on 04/07/2022 the resident weighed 158.2 pounds. On 04/27/2022, the resident weighed 149.0 pounds which is a -5.82 % loss. And further review of Resident #02's weights revealed on 01/07/2022 the resident weighed 177.0 lbs. On 04/27/2022, the resident weighed 149 pounds which is a -15.82 % loss. Review of Resident #02's orders revealed an order for ProMod Liquid 30 milliliters by mouth two times daily for wound healing and an order for Dronabinol 2.5 milligrams by two times daily for poor appetite. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to evaluate a resident's need for an opioid analgesic prior to the administration of the medication. This affected one resident (#265) of one resident's reviewed for pain. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure medications were administered without error. There were 38 opportunities for error with three observed errors for a calculated error rate of 7.89 percent. This affected one resident (#17) of three residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel file review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure prospective employees were cross checked on all registries prior to hire. This affected two employee personnel files of 11 personnel files reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 75.
10 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 10, 2026, 4 on July 18, 2024, 3 on May 9, 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) | 3.23 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.77 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.83 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 34.7% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 31.3% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.63 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 3.42 on weekdays and 2.77 on weekends, 19% 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 3.60 in April to June 2025 to 3.23 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 | 3.23 | 0.59 | 3.42 | 2.77 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.39 | 0.73 | 3.58 | 2.90 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 71 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.35 | 0.82 | 3.54 | 2.85 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.60 | 0.96 | 3.86 | 2.96 | 0.1% | 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 | 4.4 | 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 | 5.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.8 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.1 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Chillicothe Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.3% 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. 81 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 94 eligible stays.
7.2% 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. 51 eligible stays.
87.2% 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. 47 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 71 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 71 residents counted.
96.9% this home
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. 32 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: CHILLICOTHE SNF HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Providence Group Nh, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Dixon, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| 1058 Columbus Street Oh Owner LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| SNF Oh Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Well Integra Master Jv LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Well Pm Holdco Jv LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Welltower Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Dixon, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Stiltner, Sean | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 |
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.