920 South Main Street, New Lexington, OH 43764 · Perry County · (740) 342-5161
82 certified beds, about 68 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1982
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365578 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 16, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 42 health citations since September 2022, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.09 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.65 of those hours.
38.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Majestic Care, an affiliated group of 26 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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to dispose of expired medications. One of two medications rooms and two of four medications carts were reviewed. This had the potential to affect all 70 residents residing at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired food items were not kept in the kitchen. The had the potential residents who utilized cream for their beverages. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were educated on and had the opportunity to receive the updated annual COVID-19 vaccine, if they desired to do so. This affected four (Residents #2, #5, #7, and #68) of five residents reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving psychotropic medications signed consent for the use of those medications, after the risks and benefits associated to their use were explained to the resident. This affected one (Resident #5) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the rooms were kept in good repair. This affected one (#8) of one resident reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was comprehensively assessed and provided medical necessity for a resident to reside in the memory care unit. This affected one (#24) of one resident reviewed for restraints. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to monitor potential side effects of psychotropic medications for Resident #64. This affected one (#64) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was transferred out of the facility to the hospital, received a transfer notice and a bed hold notice, at or around the time of the transfer. This affected one (Resident #74) of three closed records reviewed for transfer/ discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive resident-centered care plans were in place. This affected one (#12) of 23 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure protocol was followed after an incident of suicidal ideation. This affected one (#12) of one resident reviewed for suicidal ideation. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving an anti-hypertensive medication had his blood pressure obtained and recorded at the time of the anti-hypertensive medications administration, when the physician's orders included parameters to notify the physician if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP) was greater than 100 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). This affected one (Resident #5) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to complete lab work as physician ordered. This affected one (#68) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received timely dental services. This affected one (#25) of one resident reviewed for dental care. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's medical record had accurate documentation for care related to a resident's Jackson Pratt (JP) drain. This affected one (Resident #60) of 23 residents reviewed for medical record accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent multiple avoidable pressure ulcers from developing or worsening. This affected two residents (#39 and #65) of six residents reviewed for skin breakdown. The facility census was 63. Actual Harm occurred on 09/08/25 when Resident #65, who was assessed to be high risk for skin breakdown developed deep tissue injuries (Intact skin with localized area of persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, purple discoloration due to damage of underlying soft tissue. This area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. These changes often precede skin color changes and discoloration may appear differently in darkly pigmented skin. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide ordered treatment of a thoracic abscess, daily weights and monitoring intake and outputs for a resident on fluid restrictions. This affected two residents (#39, #66) of eight resident records reviewed. The census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services as ordered. This affected one resident (#39) of eight resident records reviewed. The census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a safe and homelike environment for four residents ( #11, #20, #30, and #40) of four residents reviewed. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and facility validation accessing implanted vascular access port guidelines the facility failed to ensure an antibiotic was ordered correctly and an implanted vascular access port (port a cath) was accessed with a physician's order. This affected one resident (#11) of two residents reviewed for indwelling devices and antibiotics. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was dependent on staff for personal care, received the assistance needed with routine incontinence care and repositioning as needed when up in her wheelchair. This affected one (Resident #39) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review the facility failed to begin the discharge planning process upon admission. This affected one (Resident #39) of one residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a comprehensive plan of care and properly implement pressure relieving interventions. This affected one resident (#165) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to set parameters for as needed diuretic medication based on weight gain. This affected one of six residents (Resident#50) sampled for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection control procedures during a dressing change. This affected one (Resident #18) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interviews, and review of the AccuWeather forecast the facility failed to ensure Resident #29's window was shut during cold weather. This affected one resident (#29) of three sampled residents reviewed. The facility census was 60. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an initial admission date of 06/08/19 with the latest readmission of 02/12/24 with diagnoses including fracture of lower end of right ulna, pneumonitis due to inhalation of food and vomit, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, metabolic encephalopathy, multiple sclerosis (MS), dysphagia, osteoarthritis, dry eye syndrome, hyperlipidemia, chronic pain syndrome, scoliosis, insomnia, hypothyroidism, major depressive disorder, repeated falls, anxiety disorder and constipation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent residents from falling. This affected two residents (#62, #82) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 59. Actual Harm occurred on 02/02/24 when Resident #62 was being prepared for a transfer from her wheelchair to her bed by one staff member who then left her alone unsupervised. Resident #62 fell from her wheelchair and sustained a fracture to her right wrist. Actual Harm occurred on 02/10/24 when Resident #82, who required a dependent assist from staff for transfers, fell in the bathroom when left unsupervised and sustained a right hip fracture resulting in hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate hydration to a resident, who depended on staff for assistance with drinking fluids, to meet the resident's hydration needs. This affected one resident (#62) of one resident reviewed for dehydration. The facility census was 59. Actual Harm occurred to Resident #62 on [DATE] when the facility failed to provide the resident with adequate fluid intake and the resident was admitted to the hospital for treatment of acute kidney injury and dehydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled and per resident preference. This affected two residents (#13, #22) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide access to medical records. This affected one resident (#82) of one residents reviewed for medical records. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate care plans to reflect current mobility status. This affected one resident (#82) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to communicate a speech therapy recommendation to the physician thereby delaying a diagnostic test. This affected one resident (#34) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to replace Resident #62's broken glasses. This affected one resident (#62) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and Ohio Revised Code review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was permitted to choose his Power of Attorney (POA) and failed to ensure POA paperwork was legal. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed for POA concerns. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure vascular wounds were properly assessed, treatments were completed as ordered by the physician, and a care plan was developed for his vascular wounds to meet the resident needs. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatments were completed as ordered by the physician and a care plan was developed to meet the resident needs. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained for a new admission to the facility and failed to ensure weights were completed per physician order. This affected one resident (#63) of three residents reviewed for weight loss. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident fund accounts and staff interview, the facility failed to notify each resident that received Medicaid benefits when the amount in the account reached $200 less that the resource limit for one person. This affected three of five residents whose fund accounts were reviewed (Residents #8, #42, and #43).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for personal care received the assistance needed to trim and clean her fingernails. This affected one (Resident #23) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's).
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to identify and monitor bruising for a resident receiving oral anticoagulants, who was noted with a bruise to the upper right arm. This affected one (Resident #29) of the five residents reviewed for medication review.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's contingency drug supply, review of pharmacy receipts, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received an antibiotic as ordered by the physician for the treatment of a urinary tract infection (UTI). This affected one (Resident #9) of one resident reviewed for UTI's.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's contingency drug supply, review of pharmacy receipts, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure antibiotics ordered for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTI's) were readily made available by their contracted pharmacy for timely administration and to ensure antibiotic therapy could be completed as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #9) of one residents reviewed for UTI's.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure antipsychotic medications were not used without an adequate indication for use. This affected two (Resident #10 and #48) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
14 fire safety citations on file: 6 on March 16, 2026, 2 on October 31, 2024, 1 on November 29, 2023, 5 on September 7, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 26, 2024 | Payment Denial | 4 days from March 23, 2024 |
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) | 3.09 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.64 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.52 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.92 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 38.2% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.4% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.61 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 3.27 on weekdays and 2.64 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.09 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 | 3.09 | 0.65 | 3.27 | 2.64 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 68 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.02 | 0.56 | 3.18 | 2.61 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 66 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.16 | 0.56 | 3.33 | 2.72 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.60 | 3.68 | 3.03 | 0.5% | 0 of 91 | 58 |
| 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 | 6.5 | 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 | 1.4 | 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 | 12.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.5 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.3 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Majestic Care of New Lexington's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (60.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.0% 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. 46 eligible stays.
9.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 61 eligible stays.
6.5% 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. 41 eligible stays.
33.3% 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. 24 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. 33 residents counted.
2.9% 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. 33 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. 10 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: NEW LEXINGTON OH HEALTH & REHAB OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Majestic Care, a group of 26 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mdg Majestic Ohio Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/31/2024 |
| Marx, David | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Chamberlain, Margaret | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/11/2023 | |
| Pruitt, Paul | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Majestic Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/31/2024 | |
| Alexander, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Marx, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Mumma, Paul | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Myers, Garrett | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Pruitt, Paul | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Rewa, Angela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Russell, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Shatrov, Anzhelika | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Wolfe, Eric | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Majestic Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/11/2025 | |
| Mdg Majestic Ohio Property Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2024 | |
| New Lexington Oh Health & Rehab Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2024 | |
| Alexander, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Marx, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Mumma, Paul | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Myers, Garrett | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Pruitt, Paul | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Rewa, Angela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Russell, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Shatrov, Anzhelika | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Wolfe, Eric | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 |
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.