1136 Adair Avenue, Zanesville, OH 43701 · Muskingum County · (740) 454-6823
90 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2004
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366286 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 1, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since July 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $30,227 in the last three years; the largest was $17,151, and the latest is dated July 30, 2024.
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 0.58 of those hours.
38.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Certus Healthcare, an affiliated group of 14 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#70) with cognitive impairment was supervised while leaving the facility resulting in a fall in the parking lot. This affected one resident of seven reviewed for accidents. The facility also failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were implemented as care planned for Resident #10 and #29. The facility census was 79. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/30/26 with diagnoses that included acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure, Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, schizoaffective disorder, depression, anxiety and repeated falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed moderate cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, product information review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure multi-use insulin vials and insulin flex pens stored in the medication administration carts were properly dated, stored, and/ or discarded when needed. This affected four residents (Resident #9, #35, #68, and #70), who had their insulin stored in the medication administration cart for the East Back Hall. The facility also failed to ensure medications were stored securely, this affected three resident (#35, #12 and # 65), who were observed to have medication/wound treatment at the bedside. This had the potential to affect four residents (Resident #13, #36, #67, and #73) on the East Hall and five residents, (#2, #25, #34, #48, and #57) on the secured behavioral unit who were cognitively impaired and identified as independent with ambulation or mobile in wheelchairs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interviews, staff interviews, review of mealtimes, and review of dietary schedules, the facility failed to ensure evening meals were served at normal times due to adequate and qualified staff. This had the potential to affect all 21 residents residing on the back East Hall. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to notify the state long term care ombudsman of the transfer and/or discharge of two residents. This affected two residents (#81 and #83) of four sampled for discharges/ hospitalizations. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were coded accurately to include all known diagnoses and medication classifications received during the assessment reference date. This affected one (Resident #1) of 24 residents reviewed for MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident (# 11) had a care plan that included appropriate interventions to prevent her from causing skin impairment when picking at her skin. The facility also failed to ensure a resident had a comprehensive care plan that addressed vision impairment with the use of glasses for one resident, (# 17). This affected two (Resident #11 and #17) of 24 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure grooming/shaving were provided to dependent residents. This affected one resident (#70) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a known behavior of picking at her skin had her fingernails trimmed as part of her interventions and the facility staff identified areas of impaired skin integrity when completing weekly skin assessments. This affected one (Resident #11) of four residents reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. They also failed to ensure a resident's hospice provider was notified when an incident occurred involving one of their hospice residents. This affected one (Resident #30) of one residents reviewed for hospice services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure skin prevention interventions were implemented for a resident with a known pressure ulcer per the plan of care. This affected one resident (#8) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had appropriate justification for use of medications. This affected one (Resident #70) of six residents reviewed for medication use. Facility census was 79. Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/30/26 with diagnoses that included acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure, Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, schizoaffective disorder, depression, anxiety and repeated falls. Review of the physician's orders dated 04/15/26 revealed an order for Tagamet (used to treat and prevent heartburn, also used for sexually inappropriate behavior ) 200milligrams (mg) Oral Tablet one tablet by mouth two times a day for sexual behaviors. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory testing for a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) and lipid panel were obtained in the month of June 2026, as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to clean dishes in a safe and sanitary manner. This affected all 79 residents residing at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection prevention and control practices when staff failed to use proper personal protective equipment while providing care for one resident (#11), with the potential to affect 13 additional residents (#1, #3, #16, #17, #19, #22, #28, #33, #39, #51, #55, #61, and #84) who received care from the same staff; and failed to ensure newly hired staff completed required two-step Mantoux/tuberculosis screening upon hire for two of 13 employee files reviewed, Social Services Director #450 and Nursing Scheduler #366. The facility census was 79. Findings Include:1: Interview with the Human Resources Director #150 was conducted on 07/01/26 from 8:00 A.M. to 8:45 A.M. regarding staffing file review, employee health requirements, and Mantoux/TB screening documentation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received specialized therapy services as written in the plan of care. This affected one resident (#60) of three residents reviewed for specialized therapy services. The census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #54 received necessary services to maintain good oral hygiene. This affected one (Resident #54) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to follow physician orders to apply ice packs several times a day to the left knee of Resident #72 who was status post left total knee replacement. This affected one (Resident #72) of three residents reviewed for admission and post-surgical physician orders. The facility census was 71. Findings Include:Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #72 revealed an admission date of 10/16/25 after having a left total knee replacement on 10/13/25. Resident #72's diagnoses included diabetes, anemia, heart disease, high blood pressure and gastric reflux. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the facility in good repair and maintain a home like environment. This affected 12 of 41 resident rooms currently occupied by residents in the facility. The resident census was 70. Findings Include: On 09/18/25 tour of the facility between 9:50 A.M. and 10:20 A.M. the following environmental issues were observed: 1. room [ROOM NUMBER] behind the bed by the window, the wall was gouged and the paint peeling.2. room [ROOM NUMBER] the wall was patched and not painted in multiple places.3. room [ROOM NUMBER], 105 and 201 the ceiling was peeling and hanging down.4. room [ROOM NUMBER] by the bathroom door and corner by the dresser was gouged and scraped.5. The wallpaper was torn on both sides of the door by room [ROOM NUMBER].6. Between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] the wallpaper was torn.7. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to store perishable items under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all 85 residents residing in the facility. All residents were identified as receiving meals from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the shower cleaning sheets, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary shower room. This affected all 45 residents (#3, #7, #11, #13, #14, #15, #18, #19, #20, #22, #23, #25, #26, #27, #30, #35, #36, #40, #41, #42, #43, #45, #46, #47, #49, #52, #59, #61, #62, #63, #64, #67, #69, #72, #73, #75, #79, #232, #233, #234, #236, #237, #282, #332, and #334) residing on the east wing of the facility who utilized the facility's shower room. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide unopened mail for Resident #41. This affected one resident (#41) out of one resident reviewed for privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to correctly identify Resident #52's psychotropic diagnosis on a significant change Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) form. This affected one resident (#52) out of one resident sampled for PASRR. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, resident interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 was provided the opportunity to participate in and attend his quarterly care conference meeting. This affected one (Resident #32) out of six residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical records, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services related to a significant weight loss for Resident #17. This affected one (Resident #17) of six residents (Resident #1, #12, #17, #32, #57, and #134) reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 85 residents.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, policy review, facility investigation review and staff interview, the facility failed to prevent a resident fall with major injury. Actual Harm occurred on 06/24/24 when Resident #14, who was identified as a fall risk, was hit by a dietary cart (used to transport resident meal trays) that was being steered by Dietary [NAME] #20, causing the resident to fall and sustain a right hip fracture. The resident was emergently transported to the hospital and admitted for surgical intervention to repair the right hip fracture. This affected one resident (#14) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy/procedure review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary living environment. This affected one resident (#68) of three residents reviewed for a sanitary living environment. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, interview, record review and facility investigation review the facility failed to prevent Resident #20 from exiting the facility without staff assistance. This affected one resident (Resident #20) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of a facility fall investigation, hospital record review, review of the facility Fall policy and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident #78 adequate assistance for transferring/ambulation with toileting to prevent a fall with major injury. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm on [DATE] when Resident #78, who was admitted to the facility for rehabilitation status post hospitalization for a left total knee replacement (on [DATE]) and who was assessed to be at moderate risk for falls sustained a fall while being assisted by one State Tested Nursing Assistant, (STNA) #176 to walk from her bed to the bathroom. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review for food storage and hand hygiene, the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored and meal trays were prepared in a sanitary manner. This affected all residents residing in the facility at this time. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility record review, the facility failed to ensure the clean laundry room, which had a gas powered dryer, had a carbon monoxide detector. This had the potential to affect all 77 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #42 was treated with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#42) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure each residents Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the use of antipsychotic medication or reflected the contraindication for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for that antipsychotic. This affected two residents (Resident #42, and #50) of the 20 residents reviewed for accurate MDS. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy for preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure a new PASRR was submitted for residents with a new mental health diagnosis. This affected two residents (Resident #38, and #23) of the two residents reviewed for accurate PASRR assessments. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was on fluid restriction had fluid intake monitored and documented. This affected one Resident (#24) of one resident reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was receiving hemodialysis was assessed prior to and upon return from dialysis and there was communication between the facility and the dialysis center. This affected one resident (#24) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were not prescribed prior to receiving lab testing results and prescribed appropriately according to lab testing results. This affected one (Resident #23) of five residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The facility census was 77.
16 fire safety citations on file: 6 on July 1, 2026, 7 on January 23, 2025, 3 on July 13, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 30, 2024 | Fine | $13,076 |
| January 5, 2024 | Fine | $17,151 |
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) | 3.23 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.72 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 38.3% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 3.44 on weekdays and 2.72 on weekends, 21% 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 3.30 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 | 0.58 | 3.44 | 2.72 | 0.0% | 1 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.26 | 0.64 | 3.47 | 2.74 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.66 | 3.65 | 2.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.30 | 0.61 | 3.51 | 2.79 | 0.0% | 1 of 91 | 79 |
| 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 | 2.4 | 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 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.5 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Continuing Healthcare at Cedar Hill's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 30 eligible stays.
10.7% 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. 48 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. 39 eligible stays.
56.0% 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. 25 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 39 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. 39 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: CONTINUING HEALTHCARE CEDAR HILLS LLC. CMS links this home to Certus Healthcare, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chm Oh West Opco Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/28/2021 |
| Ohio Care Skld LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 50% | 12/28/2021 |
| Dipasqua, Jason | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/28/2021 | |
| Dipasqua, Jason | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/28/2021 | |
| Fishman, Shmuel | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/28/2021 |
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.