135 Reichart Avenue, Wintersville, OH 43953 · Jefferson County · (740) 264-1155
85 certified beds, about 55 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365629 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 21, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 91 health citations since August 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $250,817 in the last three years; the largest was $96,753, and the latest is dated April 21, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.47 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.88 of those hours.
61.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Communicare Health, an affiliated group of 110 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 91 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and staff interview, the facility failed to document timely care conferences for Residents #204 and #236. This affected two residents (#204 and #236) of three resident records reviewed for care conference communication. The facility census was 49. Findings Include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #204 revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke with left side paralysis, aphasia (difficulty speaking), high blood pressure, heart disease, seizures, gastric reflux, poor circulation, depression, insomnia (difficulty sleeping), and depression. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment completed on 05/23/26 for Resident #204 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4/15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on open and closed medical record review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to timely identify a change in resident condition and notify the medical provider to prevent a delay in treatment/timely medical intervention. The facility also failed to ensure bowel protocols were implemented for residents on hospice services. Actual harm occurred on 03/11/26 when Resident #54, who had bilateral nephrostomy tubes and history of kidney disease, experienced a decline in functional status, decreased urine output from the nephrostomy tubes, and decreased food and fluid intake without evidence of necessary and timely medical intervention or notification to the resident's medical provider. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on open and closed medical record review, review of notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and//or Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (ABN), review of beneficiary protection notification review form, and interview the facility failed to ensure NOMNC's included Quality Improvement Organization (independent reviewer authorized by Medicare to review the decision to end these services) name and contract information, NOMNC and ABN was provided and or provided timely. This affected four residents (Resident's #7, #39 #60, and #61) of four residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review. The facility census was 51.1. Closed medical record review revealed Resident #60's was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of left femur fracture, heart failure, diabetes, convulsions, head injury, and hypothyroidism. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the infection control log, policy review, interviews, and observation the facility failed to ensure the infection control log was comprehensive and failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were maintained during incontinence care. This affected three (Resident #7, #9, and #13) of four residents reviewed for infections and one (Resident #1) of one residents observed for incontinence care. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to notify the resident representative of a newly identified pressure wound. This affected one (Resident #4) of one resident reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the as needed (prn) order for a psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days. This affected one (Resident #19) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) document accurately reflected all diagnoses. This affected one (Resident #19) of one resident reviewed for PASRR documents. The census was 52. Findings Include: Medical record review revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anxiety disorder, psychoactive substance-induced psychotic disorder, chronic pain, and fibromyalgia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 01/01/26, revealed the resident had intact cognition and a diagnosis of anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #19's PASRR document, dated 02/01/24, revealed under Section E: Indications of Serious mental Illness, no was selected incorrectly indicating there was not a diagnosis of mental illness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure showers were provided as scheduled for a dependent resident. This affected one (Resident #2) of one resident reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, medical record review and Bureau of Motor Vehicles document review the facility failed to assist Resident #9 in obtaining a state photo identification. This affected one resident (Resident #9) of one residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a monthly regimen review (MRR) pharmacy recommendation for a psychotropic medication's 14-day stop date was addressed by the physician. This affected one (Resident #19) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and review of laboratory contract the facility failed to ensure ordered urine culture and sensitivity laboratory testing was completed timely. This affected one (Resident #13) of one residents reviewed for urinary tract infection. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, review of infection control log, and policy review the facility failed to ensure an effective antibiotic stewardship program to ensure residents met criteria for antibiotic treatment. This affected one (Resident #13) of four residents reviewed for infections. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, observation and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3 was free from misappropriation. This affected one (Resident #3) of three records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of the Ohio Gateway system (online system for reporting abuse) and facility policy review, the facility failed timely to report allegation of misappropriation to the state agency. This affected one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, observation and facility policy review the facility failed to investigate allegation of misappropriation. This affected one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of work order, interview, observation and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure bilateral enabler bars were in-place per orders to prevent Resident #3 from falling out of bed twice. This affected one (Resident #3) of three records reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure medications were ordered timely and available for residents. This affected one resident (Resident #7) of four residents reviewed for pharmacy services.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of hospital records, review of Medscape medical reference information, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to protect Resident #64's right to be free from neglect. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm with subsequent death beginning on [DATE] when the facility failed to provide timely and appropriate goods and services to meet Resident #64's total care and medical needs and failed to ensure the resident received timely and necessary care and treatment to prevent serious illness and death. On [DATE] Resident #64 returned from the hospital with orders for Lasix (diuretic) 20 milligrams (mg) daily and basic metabolic profile (BMP) laboratory test to be completed on [DATE]. The orders for Lasix and the BMP were not initiated or completed per the hospital discharge orders. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pest invoices, review of concerns submitted to the state survey agency complaint intake unit, interviews, observation, and review of facility policy revealed the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was maintained. This had the potential to affect all 63 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, review of funds list, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to personal funds after business hours and on weekends. This affected four residents (#4, #22, #30 and #36) of four residents reviewed for personal funds managed by the facility. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of self-reported incidents (SRI), interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of Resident #48's narcotic pain patches. This affected one resident (#48) of three residents reviewed for controlled medications. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely investigate an injury of unknown origin. This affected one resident (#31) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that adequate care and treatment was provided for a resident with left arm edema and failed to ensure bruising was assessed and documented. This affected one resident (#31) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents received effective pain management. This affected three residents (#48, #61, and #65) of three residents reviewed that received pain patches.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure narcotic medication (pain patches) were properly disposed of. This affected two residents (#48 and #65) of three residents reviewed that received narcotic pain patches. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, facility policy and procedure review, and interview, the facility failed to provide timely, necessary and adequate care and services following an acute change in condition involving Resident #63. The facility failed to ensure changes in the residents' medical condition were comprehensively assessed, the resident change in condition, including abnormal vital signs, was communicated to the medical health provider, and individualized interventions were implemented for Resident #63 when the resident was identified by therapy staff to have a decline in health including tachycardia, hypoxemia, and excessive daytime sleepiness and lethargy. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm with subsequent death beginning on [DATE] at approximately 12:30 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify a family and physician of a resident fall. This affected one resident (#64) of three residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, hospice communication review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for care received showers per preference. This affected one resident (#64) of three residents reviewed for showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, Sheriff report review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident needs were met related to a fall and supervision was provided related to resident safety. This affected two residents(#42 and #64) of seven residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide evidence the physician conducted in-person examination of all residents. This affected one resident (#51) of three residents reviewed for physician documentation. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate resident medical records. This affected two residents (#42 and #64) of seven residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure contact isolation precautions were implemented for a resident with a multi drug resistant organism with drainage that was not contained. This affected one resident (#63) of seven residents reviewed for infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Council minutes, policy review, staff interview, and resident interview the facility failed to ensure Resident Council concerns were addressed in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility. The facility census was 62. Findings Include: Review of the Resident Council minutes from 02/25 to 05/25 revealed concerns identified during the Resident Council meeting. Call light wait time concerns were mentioned during the 02/25/25, 03/20/25, and 04/17/25 Resident Council meeting. Ice water concerns were mentioned during the 04/17/25 meeting. Review of the section titled Old Business in the Resident Council minutes revealed there was no mention of any resolution related to call light wait times or ice water concerns. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of hospital records, review of an emergency medical service (EMS) report and EMS staff statements, review of facility Self Reported Incidents, review of a facility investigation, review of the facility dialysis policy and procedure, review of the facility Abuse/Neglect policy and procedure and interviews with staff, the coroner, and resident, the facility failed to prevent an incident of neglect when Resident #72 did not receive timely and necessary care to prevent major blood loss from his hemodialysis fistula site. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm with subsequent death beginning on [DATE], when Resident #72, who had intact cognition and required hemodialysis, was seen by dialysis staff, picking at his fistula site. The resident was educated not to pick at it and the resident stated he was a picker. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of facility Self Reported Incidents, review of facility investigation, interview with staff, interview with residents, and review of faciliy policy and procedure, the facility failed to report an allegation of staff to resident sexual abuse to the State agency. This affected one resident (Resident #71) out of five residents reviewed for abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, interview with staff, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to follow physician's orders to monitor the dialysis fistula bruit and thrill for Resident #72. This affected one resident (Resident #72) of three reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the medical record, interview with staff, and review of manufacture guidelines, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below five percent (%). There were two medication errors out of 29 opportunities for error, equaling a medication error rate of 6.9 %. This affected two residents (#59 and #66) of five residents (Resident #6, #48, #52, #59 and #66) observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure isolation laundry was handled and sanitized properly, failed to ensure infection control was maintained and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented during tracheostomy care for Resident #53 and during medications administration for Resident #37. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility who used the facility laundry, affected one resident (Resident #53) of two reviewed for tracheostomy care and affected one resident (Resident #37) of one observed for tube feeding medication administration. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to maintain water temperatures in a manner to ensure residents were provided sufficient and comfortable hot water for use with bathing/personal hygiene. This affected four residents (#32, #42, #56, and #63) of fifteen residents interviewed.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hypokalemia, bulbous ureteral stricture hematuria, benign prostatic hyperplasia, retention of urine, diabetes, hyperlipidemias, respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, osteoarthritis, major depressive disorder, and dementia. Review of weights in Point Click Care for Resident #45 revealed on 07/07/24 he weighed 172.4 and on 10/09/24 he weighed 154.6 for a 10.3 percent weight loss. Review of the nutritional assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #45 was down seven pounds in one month and 15.4 in three months for a significant weight loss. The weight loss was discussed with the Interdisciplinary Team and the resident was much more active moving around in the hallways in his wheelchair. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, medical record review, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident care conferences were completed quarterly. This affected two (Residents #34 and #56) of two residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a discharge summary (recapitulation of stay, final summary of the resident stay, reconciliation of medications, and post-discharge plan of care) was completed upon resident discharge/transfer from the facility. This affected one (Resident #124) of two residents reviewed for discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #73 received timely and appropriate surgical wound care. This affected one (Resident #73) of one resident reviewed for non-pressure skin alterations. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatments were completed per orders. This affected one (Resident #73) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure restorative nursing programs were monitored and assessed quarterly. This affected one (Resident #58) of three residents reviewed for mobility. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview the facility failed to maintain hot water temperatures in a safe manner to prevent potential accident/resident burns. This affected two (Residents #14 and #51) of 13 residents whose water temperatures were obtained.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were adequately assessed and treated for urinary incontinence and failed to ensure residents had adequate indication for use of an indwelling urinary catheter. This affected two (Resident #73 and #57) of three residents reviewed for bladder/bowel and catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a comprehensive and individualized plan to monitor and address significant weight loss. This affected one (Resident #73) of four residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on Ombudsman interview, resident interview, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide timely assistance to Resident #56 to obtain state photo identification. This affected one (Resident #56) of one residents reviewed for social services assistance. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to Resident #73 was free from significant medication errors. This affected one (Resident #73) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with staff, the facility failed to ensure a pneumonia vaccine was given to Resident #45 after consent. This affected one resident (Resident #45) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The facility census was 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, hospice provider self-reported incident review, review of a facility self-reported incident investigation, and staff interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of missing narcotic medications. This affected one (Resident #8) of three residents reviewed for narcotic medication use.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, hospice provider self-reported incident, facility self-reported incident investigation, and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately document medication administration in the medical record and controlled drug administration records. This affected one (Resident #8) of three residents reviewed for narcotic medication use.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, emergency room record review, review of a facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI), review of the facility investigation, review of the news broadcast at https://wtov9.com/news, employee code of conduct review, staff interviews, resident interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to prevent staff to resident sexual abuse. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for actual physical and psychosocial harm on 08/08/24 at approximately 11:10 A.M. when Hospitality Aide (HA) #286 witnessed an incident of potential sexual abuse between Maintenance Director (MD) #300 and Resident #1, a resident with a court appointed legal guardian due to mental incapacity with a known history of hypersexual tendencies. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, self-reported incident review, and staff interview the facility failed to timely report an allegation of sexual abuse and failed to report an allegation of misappropriation to the state survey agency. This affected two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and test tray, the facility failed to serve palatable chicken. This had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility except two residents (#36, #69) who do not receive nourishment from the kitchen. The facility census was 77 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and invoice review, the facility failed to ensure the facility was administered in a manner to enable it to use its resources effectively to maintain the highest practicable well being of each resident when the facility transport van has not been available for resident use for over one year. This had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility. The resident census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure sanitary pericare technique and availability of soap in the kitchen at the handwashing sink. This affected one resident (#5) who received personal care from staff and had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility except for two residents (#36, #69) who do not receive nourishment from the kitchen. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, activity calendar review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents right to self determination when the facility van was not available to transport residents to the bank, appointments and community activities. This affected two residents (#2,#10) of three residents reviewed for banking transportation and one resident (#6) of three residents reviewed for medical appointment transportation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident mail and packages was delivered unopened and on the weekends. This affected three residents (#2, #6 and #7).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure new interventions were attempted to prevent recurring urinary tract infections. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on menu review, dislike list, interviews, and photo, the facility failed to ensure a nourishing, palatable well balanced diet was served. This affected one resident (#6) of three residents reviewed for nourishing diets.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and secured. This affected Resident #24 with the potential to affect all 69 residents residing in the building.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of administration detail report, interviews, and policy review the facility failed ensure a resident received pain medication as ordered. This affected one (Resident #24) of one reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of narcotic control sheet, review of administration detail report, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure medication administration was accurately documented. This affected one (Resident #24) of one reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program to ensure the accurate identification of pressure ulcers, on-going assessment and monitoring, adequate treatment and effective interventions to timely identify and treat pressure ulcers for Resident #4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with the staff the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen. This affected all residents but two residents ( Resident #29 and #63) who did not receive food from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 71 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were adequately protected from abusive behavior by other residents. This affected two (Resident #50 and #66) of five residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to initiate a recommended restorative program to promote maintenance of a resident's ambulatory status. This affected one (Resident #26) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure treatments/interventions were applied according to physician orders. This affected three (Residents #35, #73, and #76) of four residents reviewed for wounds. The facility identified eight residents with non-pressure related skin impairment. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a wound culture in accordance with orders. This affected one (Resident #75) of four residents reviewed for wounds. The facility identified eight residents with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #13's oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle were changed weekly as ordered and failed to ensure Resident #11's oxygen tubing was changed weekly. This affected two (Resident #13 and #11) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility identified nine residents as receiving oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food appropriately stored, prepared and distributed and failed to ensure the environment was clean and sanitary. This had the potential to affect all 53 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility provided a diet list which revealed Residents #5, #40 and #60 did not receive food by mouth and did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control logs, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program that adequately tracked infections within the facility to identify trends/ patterns when they occurred. They also failed to ensure indwelling urinary catheter care was completed in accordance with acceptable infection control practices to prevent the possible spread of infection. This affected one (Resident #115) of one residents reviewed for catheter care and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility's census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to insure a clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This affected ten residents (#1, #7, #12, #15, #21, #39, #56, #60, #115 and #265). The census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an accurate Level I Pre-admission Screening/Resident Review (PASRR) was completed and did not submit a resident with a mental health disorder or intellectual disability for a Level II review for additional services. This affected two residents (#30 and #56) of two residents reviewed for PASRRs. This had the potential to affect 20 residents with diagnoses of mental health disorder or intellectual disabilities. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' complete comprehensive care plans included care plans to address constipation, oxygen use, and anxiety/ psychoactive medication use. This affected four residents (#21, #34, #39, and #56) of 22 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide residents with the ability to participate in the development of their comprehensive care plans within 72 hours upon resident admission to the facility and quarterly thereafter. This affected four residents (#7, #30, #48 and #55) of four residents reviewed for care planning. This facility census was 56 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents with current pressure ulcers and residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers were assessed, turned and repositioned and had treatment ordered for pressure areas. This affected three residents (#12, #40, and #55) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified three residents with pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control logs, infection control surveillance criteria reports, record reviews, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were not used unnecessarily and without an adequate indication for use. This affected five residents (#12, #29, #40, #49, and #215) of seven residents reviewed for antibiotic use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were accurately documented for a resident. This affected one resident (#26) of three residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were sufficiently prepared for transfer to a local emergency room. This affected two residents (#35 and #49) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Resident's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was updated when a new mental health diagnosis was added. This affected one resident (#56) of six residents reviewed for PASRR and unnecessary medications. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's activity calendar, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided the opportunity to attend activities of her preference to improve her quality of life while residing in the facility. This affected one resident (#17) of four residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, review of facility elopement documentation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a cognitively impaired, mobile resident had adequate supervision and did not elope from the facility. This affected one resident (#29) of two residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure confirmation of PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) tube placement prior to the administration of medications. This affected one resident (#40) of one resident observed for medication administration through a PEG tube. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a tracheostomy tube had all the necessary tracheostomy equipment/ supplies needed for emergencies as ordered by the physician and as per the plan of care. This affected one resident (#34) of two residents reviewed with tracheostomies.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide medically related social services to ensure a resident maintained highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being. This affected one resident (#55) of one resident reviewed for mood status. This had the potential to affect 34 residents with a Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of 10 or higher. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications ordered on an as needed (prn) basis for hypertension and pain included appropriate parameters to direct the nurse on when to administer the medications. This affected one resident (#34) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications were used for an appropriate indication and administered as ordered. This affected two residents (#31 and #56) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure they were free from a medication error rate of 5% or more. This affected one resident (#40) of four residents observed for medication administration. This resulted in three errors in medication administration out of 27 opportunities for error resulting in a medication error rate of 11.11%. The facility census was 56.
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on April 21, 2026, 3 on December 19, 2024, 1 on August 8, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 21, 2026 | Fine | $54,945 |
| April 21, 2026 | Payment Denial | 2 days from May 16, 2026 |
| June 2, 2025 | Fine | $96,753 |
| June 2, 2025 | Payment Denial | 54 days from June 25, 2025 |
| March 20, 2025 | Fine | $84,686 |
| August 22, 2024 | Fine | $14,433 |
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) | 3.47 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.88 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.02 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.87 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.73 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 61.2% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.76 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 3.66 on weekdays and 3.02 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 3.38 in April to June 2025 to 3.47 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.47 | 0.88 | 3.66 | 3.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 55 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.52 | 0.99 | 3.66 | 3.18 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.51 | 1.02 | 3.71 | 3.03 | 0.8% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.38 | 0.81 | 3.53 | 3.03 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 62 |
| 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 | 3.3 | 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 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.1 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Dixon Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (39.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.8% 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. 37 eligible stays.
9.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 46 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. 22 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. 16 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. 22 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. 22 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. 5 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: REICHART LEASING CO LLC. CMS links this home to Communicare Health, a group of 110 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sxcy Mstr Lsco, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/2022 |
| Health Care Lease Facilities, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Sxcy Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Stoltz, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2018 | |
| Wilheim, Ronald | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2018 | |
| Reichart Mgt Co., LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Groves, Donna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/14/2023 | |
| Murty, Ramana | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2018 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Richard | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| C.r. Stoltz Family Investment Company Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| C.r. Stoltz Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Health Care Lease Facilities, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| I. Rosedale Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| R.s. Wilheim Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Reichart Mgt Co., LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/25/2025 | |
| Ronald S Wilheim 2012 Spousal Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Rosedale Family Investment Company, Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Rrw, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| S.l. Rosedale Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Skilled Hc Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 | |
| Sxcy Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Wilheim Family Investment Company, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2018 |
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.