4075 West Dublin-Granville Road, Dublin, OH 43017 · Franklin County · (614) 210-0541
120 certified beds, about 67 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2014
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366418 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 26, 2026, inspectors cited 26 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 84 health citations since November 2021, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $347,947 in the last three years; the largest was $150,400, and the latest is dated January 26, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.65 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.84 of those hours.
54.7% 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 84 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #86 was discharged appropriately. This affected one resident (Resident #86) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed ensure Resident #86 was provided with timely notice of discharge and a discharge summary including all necessary components to assist in continuity of care. This affected one resident (# 86) of three residents reviewed for discharges. The census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff, resident and family interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure scheduled personal hygiene care was consistently provided. This affected two (Resident #32 and #45) out of three dependent residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 69. Findings Included:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #32, revealed an admission date of 01/24/26 with re-entry on 03/01/26. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, unspecified asthma, aftercare following joint replacement surgery, and difficulty in walking not elsewhere classified. Review of the Medicare five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the hospital after visit summary, and staff interview, the failed to transcribe and implement hospital discharge orders. This affected one (Resident #21) of three residents reviewed. The facility census was 69.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the hospital discharge summary, review of the self-reported incident (SRI), review of investigative documentation, review of documentation from the contracted company, review of the incident/accident log, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and monitoring following intravenous (IV) insertion by a contracted provider. This affected one (Resident #70) out of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 69.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory orders and wound cultures were completed timely. This affected one (Resident #71) of three residents reviewed for laboratory tests. The census was 69.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer program to timely identify, treat and/or prevent a decline of pressure ulcers. Actual Harm occurred to one resident (#23), who had been identified at risk for pressure ulcer development and required maximum staff assistance for bed mobility, on 12/10/25 when the facility failed to accurately assess, put a treatment and appropriate interventions in place in a timely manner, and complete treatments as ordered to a pressure ulcer wound to the resident's back that was first identified on 12/08/25 (two days after the resident was admitted to the facility). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were served food that was palatable and at an appropriate temperature. This had the potential to affect all 65 residents who receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen. This affected all 65 residents who receive food form the kitchen. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility record review, resident record review, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to implement and maintain effective infection prevention and control practices by not consistently following required water management and Legionella control measures, by failing to ensure appropriate and readily available personal protective equipment in the laundry area, and by failing to prevent potential contamination during resident care and use of medical equipment, as evidenced by infection control concerns observed during incontinence care for Resident #68, a urinary catheter drainage bag observed resting on the floor for Resident #3. This affected two residents (#3, #68) of 65 residents with the potential to affect all 65 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, standards of care, and policy review, the facility failed to have adequate linens available for resident use. This had the potential to affect all 24 residents located on the first floor. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and resident interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete initial care plan conferences and quarterly care plan conferences for residents and responsible parties as required. This affected seven residents (#4, #7, #13, #26, #27, #78, and #114) of 24 residents reviews. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete ordered treatments for Resident #7, failed to properly assess and address Resident #9's skin impairment to the toe, failed to initiate Resident #19's physician order dated 12/31/25 until 01/03/26, failed to ensure ordered TED hose were applied for Resident #24 for three days, failed to transcribe and implement discharge orders from the after visit summary (AVS) for Resident #25, failed to properly treat Resident #26's irritated skin as ordered, failed to complete ordered treatment to the buttocks for Resident #61, and failed to complete ordered treatment for Resident #83. This affected eight residents (#7, #9, #19, #24, #25, #26, #61, #83) out of 32 residents reviewed in the sample. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a safe and homelike environment for residents including unsecured medications, fall prevention interventions, and functionality of facility doors. This affected five residents (#5, #10, #19, #31, #37) of five residents reviewed. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to store and label oxygen and nebulizer equipment properly for eight residents (#5, #7, #8, #14, #26, #27, #61, #68) of 27 residents who utilizes oxygen or nebulizers. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all medications, including tuberculin solution, were accurately labeled and discarded upon expiration. This affected seven residents (#7, #19, #24, #57, #61, #64, #68) of 65 residents. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Medicare beneficiary notices and staff interview, the facility failed to notify two residents (#1, #49) of three Medicare beneficiary notices reviewed. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to document a resident's discharge and develop a discharge plan for one Resident #74. This affected one resident (#74) of two residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census is 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide a resident with a proper discharge including a discharge plan or summary. This affected one resident (#74) of two residents reviewed for discharge from the facility. The facility census is 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure resident Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) were updated after receiving new diagnoses. This affected three residents (#6, #12 and #65) of three residents reviewed for PASARR screening. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were updated to ensure residents received comprehensive care and treatment. This affected three residents (#14, #55, and #61) out of 32 records reviewed in the sample. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living (ADL's) for dependent residents were completed. This affected three residents (#7, #26 and #65) of four residents reviewed for ADL care. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the bowel protocol was followed for Resident #3. This affected one resident (#3) of three residents reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure weight loss was adequately addressed for Resident #8 and proper follow up was completed after Resident #6 had significant weight loss. This affected two residents (#6, #8) of eight residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to act upon the pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner. This affected three residents (#7, #24 and #32) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, pharmacy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from unnecessary medications. This affected one resident (#7) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, policy review, and manufacture instructions revealed the facility failed to prime an insulin pen for Resident #56, the facility also failed to correctly read the number of insulin units for Resident #41 and failed to administer pantoprazole granules appropriately for Resident #84. This affected three (Resident #56, #41, and #84) out of two residents with insulin pens on the first floor and four residents on the first floor that received insulin via an insulin syringe, and two residents on the first floor that received pantoprazole granules. The surveyor observed 25 opportunities for error with three actual errors resulting in a medication error rate of 12%. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain ordered laboratory tests. This affected one resident (#24) of 38 residents reviewed for laboratory tests. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medical records. This affected two residents (#8, #48) of 24 residents reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain hospice communication records/documentation for residents receiving hospice services. This affected two residents (#9, #68) out of two residents reviewed for hospice services. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of infection surveillance records, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure antibiotic orders were thoroughly researched to determine if residents met the criteria for infections, failed to ensure when criteria was not met the prescriber was informed, and failed to provide education and reports regarding antibiotic use to prescribers in accordance with policies. This affected three residents (#3, #23, #56) of 11 residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure flu shots were completed properly. This affected three residents (#5, #26, #61) out of five residents reviewed for vaccines. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of a fall investigation, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to effectively manage one resident's (Resident #43) pain following an unwitnessed fall which resulted in a T12 spinal fracture. Actual harm occurred on 10/07/24 when Resident #43 reported head, neck, and low back pain to Unit Manager (UM) #267. Resident #43 reported an unwitnessed fall occurred in her room on 10/06/24. Resident #43 received scheduled pain medications at 8:04 A.M. Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) #700 assessed Resident #43 on 10/07/24 at approximately 9:00 A.M. The resident reported 10 out of 10 pain where 10 is the worst pain possible and was visibly crying while ambulating with her walker. CNP #700 ordered Resident #43 to be transported to the hospital for further evaluation via non-emergency transportation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure mail was delivered timely and on the weekends. This had potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and record review, facility failed to ensure the Activity Director met minimum qualifications for the position. This had potential to affect all facility residents. Facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, staff interviews, and observations, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive water management plan was in place for the prevention of Legionella, failed to follow proper infection control techniques during wound dressing changes, failed to utilize Enhanced Barrier Precautions for a resident with an indwelling medical device, and failed to complete tuberculosis test per the facility assessment. This affected two residents (#4 and #102) and had the potential to affect all 99 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of bed hold notices, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to include a daily room rate on bed hold notices for four residents (Residents #9, #37, #43, and #68) who were transferred to the hospital. This affected four residents (Residents #9, #37, #43, and #68) of four reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record Resident #37 revealed an admission date on 04/22/22. Medical diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, history of falling, repeated falls, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, mood (affective) disorder, and need for assistance with personal care. Review of clinical census revealed Resident #37 was hospitalized on [DATE]. Resident #37's payer source was a managed care insurance provider which supplied both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for three residents (Residents #37, 43, and 51), failed to ensure medications were available for administration as ordered for one resident (Resident #62), and failed to promptly initiate timely treatment for one resident's (Resident #68) malfunctioning percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. This affected five residents (Residents #37, 43, 51, 62, and 68) of 27 residents reviewed for quality of care concerns. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record Resident #37 revealed an admission date on 04/22/22. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and policy review the facility failed to enforce the smoking policy to ensure resident safety. This affected three ( Resident #92, #94, and #213) residents who were observed smoking and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure fall preventions were in place for one resident ( Resident #37) and failed to obtain neurological checks as scheduled after a fall for one resident ( Resident #43) out of six residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident, family, and staff interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure the residents who were at nutrition and/or hydration risk were provided with adequate assistance with meal and fluid intake, weights were obtained and monitored, and meal and fluid intakes were consistently documented. This affected six residents (Residents #4, #15, #55, #58, #68, and #100) of 12 residents reviewed for nutrition and hydration during the annual survey. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, observations, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the residents were offered snacks in the evening. This affected Resident #1, #11, and #34 and had the potential to affect 96 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen and nutrition rooms were maintained in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 96 residents who the facility identified to receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect. This had the potential to affect one residents (Resident #22) out of two residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within the resident's reach. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, closed record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident funds were returned upon discharge or account closure. This affected one resident (#363) of one reviewed for closed resident fund accounts. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided spenddown notifications as required. This affected two Residents (#6, and #74) of six reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to notify the physician of a change of condition for one resident . This had the potential to effect one resident (#68) out of six residents reviewed for nutrition. The census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure lighting issues were addressed timely for one Resident (#34) of one reviewed for lighting concerns. Facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, facility failed to ensure resident fund accounts were free from misappropriation. This affected one Resident (#22) of six reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews and record review, facility failed to ensure resident had a care plan for dental care. This affected one Resident (#22) of 27 residents in the sample. Facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews and record review, facility failed to assist a resident in a timely manner with referrals for transfer. This affected one Resident (#22) of two reviewed for discharge. Facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to consistently engage in effective communication with one resident (Resident #37) whose primary language was Spanish. This affected one (Resident #37) of three reviewed for language and communication. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: Review of the medical record Resident #37 revealed an admission date on 04/22/22. Medical diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, history of falling, repeated falls, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, mood (affective) disorder, and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed Resident #37 had mildly impaired cognition and scored an 11 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to adequately meet personal care needs which included shaving for Resident #33. This affected one (Resident #33) of two residents reviewed for shaving needs. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, obesity, dislocation of lumbar vertebra, bilateral osteoarthritis, and history of transient ischemic attack. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was cognitively impaired, had bilateral impairments on upper and lower extremities, and required maximum assistance from staff for personal hygiene needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities were provided daily and to meet resident interests. This affected two Residents (#55 and #100) of two reviewed for activities. Facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized skin integrity program to ensure identification, interventions and treatments were initiated upon identification of the wound. This affected two (Resident #40 and #4) residents. Additionally, the facility failed to change a malfunctioning mattress timely for Resident #5. This affected three residents ( Resident #40, #4, and #5) out of three residents reviewed for skin integrity. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff and resident interview, record review,and policy review, the facility failed to ensure orders for indwelling urinary catheters were in place for Resident #88 and #100. This affected two Residents (#88 and #100) of two reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to identify and care plan residents with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) to include non-pharma logical interventions to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization. This had the potential to effect one resident (#15) of one resident reviewed for diagnosis of PTSD. The census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed by the physician, including rational for not following recommendations. This affected two residents (Resident #11 and #15) out of five residents reviewed for un-necessary medications. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who received multiple as needed pain medications had parameters in place to ensure pain medications were administered appropriately. This affected two (Residents #11 and #15) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dental services and follow up were provided timely to a resident. This affected one (Resident #22) of one resident reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow guidance within their antibiotic stewardship program to ensure antibiotics were ordered appropriately. This affected two (Resident #10 and Resident #163) of three residents reviewed for antibiotic usage. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interview, review of facility policy, and observations, the facility failed to ensure they had a functional call light system and call lights were kept within reach. This affected two (Residents #31 and #55) of three residents reviewed for call light systems. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to put treatments in place in a timely manner when Resident #21 developed three non-pressure related ulcers. This affected one (Resident #21) of three residents reviewed for skin impairment. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policy and resident rights, resident and staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping and maintenance services were provided to maintain a sanitary, orderly and comfortable interior. This affected one resident (#75) and had the potential to affect an additional 36 residents (Resident #2, #3, #5, #8, #9, #11, #12, #19, #22, #23, #25, #26, #30, #32, #33, #35, #36, #40, #41, #43, #48, #49, #59, #62, #64, #65, #69, #71, #74, #83, #84, #85, #86, #91, #92, and #94) who resided on the second floor. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the nourishment room's refrigerators in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected two of two nourishment rooms. This had the potential to affect all 104 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the flooring was in good repair and safe in the second floor nourishment room for the residents to use. This affected one of two nourishment rooms. This had the potential to affect the 58 residents residing on the second floor. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of 30-day notice, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the 30-day discharge notice documented the location of discharge. This affected one (Resident #90) of two residents revived for 30-day discharge notice. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident medications not prepared ahead of administration time and failed to store over the counter (OTC) medications appropriately with name, the original manufacturer's or pharmacy-applied label indicating the medication name, strength, quantity, accessory instructions, lot number, and expiration date when applicable. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure medications were under direct observation of the person administering the medication or locked in the medication storage area/cart. This affected one of four hallways. This affected three residents (#63, #91, and #97). The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were handled and distributed a sanitary manner. This affected two residents (#63 and #99) of four residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, hospital record review, pharmacy medication regimen review, interviews with staff, Medical Director #404, Pharmacy Clinical Director #406, and Family Member #500, review of information on the American Heart Association Website www.heart.org, review of the Eliquis online customer information, and consultant pharmacy contract review, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error for Resident #105. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and serious life-threatening harm when Resident #105, who had a history of atrial fibrillation (a condition of rapid heartrate), and cerebral vascular accident (CVA/stroke) did not receive physician ordered anticoagulation therapy (Eliquis) to prevent blood clot formation from [DATE] to [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, review of hospital medical records and policy review, the facility failed to monitor the urinary status of Resident #84 following the removal of an indwelling urinary catheter resulting in urine retention and hospitalization for treatment. This resulted in Actual Harm on 05/10/24 when Resident #84, who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an indwelling urinary catheter due to urine retention and failing a voiding trial, was not adequately monitored following the removal of the catheter. On 05/10/24 at 1:12 A.M. the resident complained of lower abdominal pain and distention of the lower abdomen. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and pharmacy contract review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive medical record review was completed to identify irregularities with prescribed medications during the monthly pharmacy medication regimen review (MRR). This affected one resident (Resident #105) of five residents reviewed for anticoagulant medication use. The facility census was 103. Findings Include: Review of medical record for Resident #105 revealed an initial admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a history of stroke, atrial fibrillation (Afib), type two diabetes mellitus, and breast cancer. Further review revealed Resident #105 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) tasks and transfers, was non-ambulatory using a wheelchair for mobility and was verbally able to make needs known to staff. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were handled and distributed in a sanitary manner. This affected two residents (#12, #25 and #34) out of four residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 103. Findings Include: 1. An observation on 06/03/24 from 8:45 A.M. to 9:03 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #264 performing medication administration for Residents #12, and #25. LPN #264 prepared Resident #12's morning medication at the medication cart, knocked and entered Resident #12's room and administered the medication. Upon completion of Resident #12's medication administration, LPN #264 exited the room without washing or sanitizing his hands. Once LPN #264 returned to the medication cart and began preparing Resident #25's medication without sanitizing his hands. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of hospital records, resident interview, staff interview, observation, resident family interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure central venous line (a type of intravenous access that goes directly into central circulation near the heart) dressing changes were completed as ordered. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #43's central venous line dressing changes were not completed as ordered and Resident #43 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with sepsis from a central line-associated blood stream infection. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) (a type of intravenous access inserted through a peripheral vein which terminates in central circulation near the heart) dressings changes were completed as ordered. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of a Self-Reported Incident, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #125 was treated with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#125) of four residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report an incident of potential misappropriation and verbal abuse. This affected two (Resident #46 and #51) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census is 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility investigations, review of Self-Reported Incidents, staff interview, resident interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate incidents of potential abuse. This affected four residents (#46, #51, #84, and #101) out of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete wound care as ordered. This affected one (Resident #120) of four residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This affected one (Resident #101) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 113.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, medical record review, hospital documentation review, staff and resident representative interviews, review of employee personnel files, review of disciplinary action documentation, review of an investigation, and review of facility initiated corrective action, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care was provided to prevent a resident fall. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #98 was transferred by a mechanical (Hoyer) lift incorrectly, and subsequently fell, causing a fracture to inferior pubic ramus and S3 fracture (sacral) which required hospitalization. Additionally, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident when Resident #98 fell from the Hoyer lift. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled. This affected one (#81) of three residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #385's advance directive in the electronic medical record was accurate. This affected one (#385) of two residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain clean floors, tables, and privacy curtains in the resident's rooms. This affected two (#48 and #64) of two residents reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were locked when unattended. This had the potential to affect two (#59 and #61) of 21 residents residing on second floor unit. The facility census was 93.
14 fire safety citations on file: 4 on January 26, 2026, 8 on October 31, 2024, 2 on November 18, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 26, 2026 | Fine | $150,400 |
| January 26, 2026 | Payment Denial | 27 days from February 18, 2026 |
| October 31, 2024 | Fine | $52,992 |
| June 12, 2024 | Fine | $128,935 |
| June 12, 2024 | Payment Denial | 5 days from July 11, 2024 |
| January 8, 2024 | Fine | $15,620 |
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) | 3.65 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.28 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.27 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.54 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.7% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 72.2% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.57 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 3.80 on weekdays and 3.28 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 10.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.64 in April to June 2025 to 3.65 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 | 3.65 | 0.84 | 3.80 | 3.28 | 10.1% | 0 of 90 | 67 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.51 | 0.69 | 3.61 | 3.25 | 2.6% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.78 | 0.86 | 3.98 | 3.27 | 1.4% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.64 | 0.76 | 3.79 | 3.25 | 2.2% | 0 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 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.6 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.4 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.6 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Dublin Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.7% 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. 108 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 107 eligible stays.
6.1% 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. 64 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. 19 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. 49 residents counted.
3.3% 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. 49 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. 9 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: DUBLIN 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 | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| PACS Group, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| PACS Holdings, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Providence Group Nh, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Dutiel, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| 4075 W Dublin-Granville Road Oh Owner LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| PACS Group, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/04/2025 | |
| PACS Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/04/2025 | |
| 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 | |
| Dutiel, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| McEldowney, Thomas | 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.