100 Michelli Street, Barnesville, OH 43713 · Belmont County · (740) 425-5400
64 certified beds, about 62 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2007
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366352 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 3, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 48 health citations since May 2021 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.27 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.58 of those hours.
27.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Foundations Health Solutions, an affiliated group of 64 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #62 received all medication doses a physician ordered intravenous (IV) antibiotic. This affected one (Resident #62) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician notification of a resident's blood pressure when outside of listed blood pressure parameters. This affected one resident (#27) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to develop comprehensive and individualized care plans. This affected one resident (#3) of two residents reviewed for Communication-Sensory concerns. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure identification, assessment, and appropriate interventions were put in place to achieve [NAME] bowel function for Resident #13, Resident #46, and Resident #51. This affected three residents (#13, #46, and #51) out of four residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. Facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident did not receive unnecessary medication when a resident was administered antibiotics not at the ordered dose. This affected one resident (#27) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the medical record, and interview with staff revealed the facility failed to ensure safe storage of medications. This affected one resident (#7) of five residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nephrologist was notified of abnormal laboratory results. This affected one resident (#27) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate and thorough medical records were maintained. This affected three residents (#13, #18, and #34) of 19 residents sampled. The census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the medical record and interview with staff the facility failed to appropriately monitor a resident experiencing signs and symptoms of a contagious respiratory illness and failed to implement contact isolation precautions for a resident with an infectious microorganism in the urine. This affected one resident (#21) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care and one resident (#27) of three residents reviewed for antibiotic usage.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were not ordered without meeting the required criteria for Resident #32. This affected one resident (#32) of three residents reviewed for antibiotic use. Facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interview, review of camera footage, employee statement review and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services, including appropriate supervision levels, to prevent resident neglect. This affected one resident (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for neglect. The facility census was 58.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, review of camera footage, employee statement review, self-reported incident review, and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident neglect to the state survey agency This affected one (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of a medication error report and the facility's related investigation, resident interview, staff interview, review of employee personnel files, and policy review, the facility failed to have competent nurse staffing to ensure medications were administered to residents to meet professional standards of nursing. This affected two residents (#41 and #44) of four residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure bathing and showers were provided as requested. This affected one resident (#14) of three residents reviewed for showers. The census was 58.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident representatives and physician were notified of changes in treatment and condition. This affected two residents (#59, #61) of three residents reviewed for notification. The census was 58.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care was in place related to a blister from spilled coffee. This affected one resident (#15) of three residents reviewed for skin conditions. The census was 58.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely intervention for a resident with nausea and vomiting. This affected one resident (#61) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. The census was 58.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure reduction measures were in place as ordered. This affected two residents (#4, #15) of three residents reviewed for skin impairment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate medical records. This affected two residents (#4, #15) of three residents reviewed for skin impairment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, in room camera video review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility education review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #63 received a dignified experience during a meal service and during incontinence care. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of videos from an in room camera, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility education information, the facility failed to ensure a resident was transferred in a safe and orderly manner. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on in room camera video review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were followed during feeding assistance and with the provision of incontinence care. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to store foods properly to prevent spoilage and/or contamination. This had the potential to affect 51 residents receiving food from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (Resident #155) as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Identification Screen was accurate. This affected one resident (Resident #3) of one resident reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure care planning conferences were conducted quarterly. This affected one Resident (Resident #27) of one resident reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were assisted with activities of daily living. This affected one resident (Resident #35) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to properly store nebulizer masks for two residents (Resident #3 and Resident #9) and failed to change oxygen tubing weekly for one resident (Resident #14). This affected three residents (Resident #3, #9 and #14) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were discontinued per physician orders. This affected one resident (Resident #15) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide an appropriate diagnosis for a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication. This affected one resident (Resident #48) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure outside garbage was contained in a receptacle. This had the potential to affect all 52 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the appropriate transmission based precautions were posted for a resident in isolation. This affected one resident (Resident #36) of one resident reviewed for transmission based precautions. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, Loeb's Minimum Criteria for Initiating Antibiotic Therapy review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure residents met the minimum criteria for initiating antibiotic use. This affected one resident (Resident #15) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of the facility assessment and interview the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing levels to provide timely care and services including assistance with activities of daily living, individualized activity programs, and weekend activities. This affected 12 (Residents #9, #36, #34, #151, #26, #2, #27, #42, #5, #14, #28 and #44) and had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a sustainable plan of correction to correct staffing deficiencies identified and cited during previous survey activity exited 04/12/21. This had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility shower schedule, review of bathing preferences, review of the facilities shower preference and shower documentation process, and interviews the facility failed to ensure dependent residents were provided showers per their schedule/preference. This affected eight (Resident #5, #14, #28, #34, #36, #41, #44, and #151) of nine reviewed for bathing/showers. The current census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the activity schedule, review of the facility assessment, and interviews the facility failed to timely comprehensively assess resident preferences for activities and failed to provide activities on the weekend per preferences. This affected four (Residents #2, #26, #27, and #42) and had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure prescription drugs were dated when opened and properly stored in their original packaging. This affected three residents (Resident #1, #13 and #16) whose medications were found opened and not dated and had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #200's urinary catheter bag was covered to maintain dignity. This affected one out of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident #14 and Resident #200). The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #24, who had indicators of serious mental illness, had a pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) completed to determine whether the resident qualified for Level II services. This affected one (Resident #24) of one reviewed for PASARR.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 received treatments per her physician's orders and Resident #28's skin intervention were in place. This affected two of three residents reviewed for skin conditions (Residents #24, #28 and #32). The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatments were administered per physician orders. This affected one (Resident #26) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to provide range of motion services to two (Residents #14 and #24) of 16 residents observed for and/or interviewed regarding range of motion. The facility identified eight residents with contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview the facility failed to ensure catheter care for a resident in accordance with the plan of care and physician's orders. This affected one (Resident #14) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility identified eight residents with indwelling urinary catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure proper infection control procedures were followed during catheter care for Resident #200. This affected one of two residents reviewed for the use of indwelling urinary catheters (Resident #200 and #14). The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the infection control log, review of antibiotic stewardship log, review of Loeb and McGeer criteria, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure appropriate use of antibiotics. This affect two (Resident #18 and #19) of four reviewed for infections. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents received pneumococcal immunizations timely. This affected two (Residents #151 and #200) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of residents rights, the facility failed to ensure mail delivered on weekends was provided to residents in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility new hire list, review of timecards, review of Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) log, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the facility maintained a comprehensive BCI log. This had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently residing in the facility.
4 fire safety citations on file: 2 on March 3, 2025, 1 on April 13, 2023, 1 on May 27, 2021.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.27 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.00 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.87 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.82 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 27.1% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.94 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 3.38 on weekdays and 3.00 on weekends, 11% 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 3.12 in April to June 2025 to 3.27 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 | 3.27 | 0.58 | 3.38 | 3.00 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 62 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.21 | 0.65 | 3.30 | 2.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.29 | 0.64 | 3.41 | 2.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.12 | 0.49 | 3.29 | 2.69 | 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 | 9.0 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 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 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.5 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.9 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Emerald Pointe Health and Rehab Ctr's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 72 eligible stays.
12.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 76 eligible stays.
6.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 47 eligible stays.
56.4% this home
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 39 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. 50 residents counted.
7.9% 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. 50 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 32 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: BETHESDA HEALTH AND REHAB CENTER, INC.. CMS links this home to Foundations Health Solutions, a group of 64 nursing homes averaging 4.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colleran, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Colleran, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Krystowski, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Foundations Health Solutions, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2019 | |
| Colleran, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Krystowski, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Wojtasek, Kyle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Foundations Health Solutions, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/08/2025 | |
| Colleran, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Krystowski, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Patcha, Himalaya | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2007 | |
| Wojtasek, Kyle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 |
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.