421 Mission Lane, Franklin, OH 45005 · Warren County · (937) 746-3943
79 certified beds, about 71 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365595 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 15, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since December 2019, 1 was 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 3.23 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.52 of those hours.
51.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, review of dietary spreadsheets, review of guidelines for pureeing food, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received enough food to meet their needs and preferences, serve portions sizes as planned on the menu, ensure pureed food was prepared in a manner to maintain the nutritive value of the food, and ensure posted menus were updated for the residents to view what meals they were having for the day. This affected Resident #3 and had the potential to affect 65 of 66 residents. The facility identified one resident (#9) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and resident representative interviews, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received foods that were palatable. This had the potential to affect 65 of 66 residents. The facility identified one resident (#9) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a manner to protect against the potential spread of foodborne illness. The facility also failed to ensure staff wore hair restraints in the kitchen. The facility also failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 65 of 66 residents in the facility. The facility identified one resident (#09) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) meeting sign-in sheets, review of the facility's QAPI meetings policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure required QAPI team member were present at meetings. The had the ability to affect all 66 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary, and safe environment for all residents. This affected Residents #4 and #31 and had the potential to affect all 66 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, policy review, and review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to follow physician orders for contact isolation precautions for Residents #57 and #13. This affected Residents #57 and #13 and had the potential to affect the residents residing on their units, 100 and 200 halls. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure all residents were provided with a safe, clean and homelike environment. This affected two (#13 and #25) of two residents reviewed for homelike environment. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, review of Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations of staff-to-resident physical abuse were reported timely to administration and the State Survey Agency. This affected one (#40) of five residents reviewed abuse. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure admission comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed within the required timeframes. This affected three (#3, #25, and #39) of three residents reviewed for resident assessment. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were complete and specific to each resident. This affected two (#3 and #55) of six residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were updated timely to reflect new diagnoses, new sexual behaviors, and medications to treat the new diagnoses and behaviors. This affected two (#45 and #57) of six residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance with activities of daily living received adequate assistance with nail care. This affected one (#22) of two residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure activities met the needs and preferences of the residents. This affected one (Resident #77) of two residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, review of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents vaped in the facility's designated smoking area. This affected one (Resident #11) of two residents reviewed for supervision. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate did not exceed five percent (%). There were two observed errors out of 34 opportunities that resulted in a medication error rate of 5.88%. This affected one (Resident #42) out of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurate. This affected one (#3) of 23 residents reviewed medical record accuracy. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the facility menu and spreadsheet and policy review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed. This had the potential to affect 59 of 59 residents who receive their meals from the kitchen, the facility identified two residents (#25 and #31) that received no food by mouth. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 59 of 59 residents who receive their meals from the kitchen, the facility identified two residents (#25 and #31) that received no food by mouth. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff and resident interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely. This affected five (#18, #29, #32, #55 and #56) out of five residents reviewed for medication storage. This had the potential to affect four (#29, #48, #10 and #57) residents that the facility identified as cognitively impaired and independently mobile. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's admission assessments were timely completed in the electronic health record. This affected one (#300) out of three residents reviewed for medical record accuracy and completeness. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene during during incontinence care. This affected one (#06) out of three residents reviewed for incontinent care. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI), review of the facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to report resident-to-resident physical abuse to the State Survey Agency, the Ohio Department of Health. This affected two (Residents #1 and #2) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician and resident representative of the resident's severe weight losses. This affected two (Residents #200 and #500) of six residents reviewed for weight loss. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the Medline guidance, the facility failed to provide the care and services for a resident's peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). This affected one (Resident #200) of three residents reviewed for intravenous (IV) therapy. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to respond to an acute change in condition, including an elevated temperature for Resident #49 in a timely manner. Actual harm occurred on 01/27/23 when Resident #49, who was in a persistent vegetative state and dependent on staff for all activity of daily living care, was transferred to hospital and admitted for treatment of pneumonia requiring intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The resident had been initially assessed to have an elevated temperature on 01/25/23 of 101.3 with no evidence of physician notification, comprehensive assessment or treatment. The resident was hospitalized until 02/02/23. The facility's census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications by ensuring expired medications were not being used. This affected six residents (#2, #4, #7, #15, #34, #155) who facility identified as receiving the expired medications from two medication carts and a medication storage room in the facility. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician of Resident #49's elevated temperature for two days. This affected one (Resident #49) of three residents reviewed for physician notification. The facility's census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide activities to residents residing in the facility's Memory Care Unit (MCU). This affected three (Residents #25, #35, and #41) of three residents reviewed for activities. The facility's census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the faciltiy failed to assess pressure ulcers on a weekly basis to include wound measurments and description of the wounds. This affected two (Residents #30 and #37) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified four (Residents #29, #30, #37, and #39) with pressure ulcers. The facility's census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an ordered orthotic therapeutic device was applied to assist with a resident's contracture. This affected one (Resident #49) observed for application of therapeutic devices. The facility identified 25 residents with contractures. The facility's census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide supervision and failed to implement interventions for a resident who smoked. This affected one (Resident #45) of five residents identified to smoke. The facility's census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control techniques during tracheostomy (trach) care. This affected one resident (#49) of the two residents identified by the facility as requiring tracheostomy care. The facility also failed to utilize proper hand hygiene during wound care. This affected one Resident (#49) of the four residents identified with wounds and requiring dressing changes. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and/or implement each resident's plan of care related to contracture management, diabetes management and insulin use, use of an anti-platelet medication, and for medications used to managed inappropriate behaviors. This affected four (#04, #07, #52, and #63) of 20 residents' whose care plans were reviewed. The census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and representative/family interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that one resident received treatment and care to maintain proper and comfortable positioning while in a wheel chair. This affected one (Resident #16) of three residents reviewed for positioning/mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a limited range of motion received appropriate treatment to prevent further decreases in range of motion and to improve comfort. This involved one (Resident #04) of three residents reviewed for positioning/mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored for sexual behaviors related to the use of medication. This affected one (Resident #07) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 66.
21 fire safety citations on file: 6 on September 15, 2025, 8 on February 14, 2023, 7 on December 12, 2019.
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) | 3.23 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.52 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.93 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.09 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.62 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 77.8% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.58 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 3.36 on weekdays and 2.93 on weekends, 13% 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 4.07 in April to June 2025 to 3.23 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.23 | 0.52 | 3.36 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 71 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.35 | 0.28 | 3.48 | 3.00 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 68 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.93 | 0.45 | 4.17 | 3.29 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.07 | 0.39 | 4.32 | 3.46 | 0.0% | 2 of 91 | 65 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 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 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 45.0 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.6 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Momentous Health at Franklin's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 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. 20 eligible stays.
12.1% 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. 25 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 22 eligible stays.
35.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 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. 41 residents counted.
4.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 41 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: FRANKLIN REHAB LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stein, Mark | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/01/2023 |
| Tenenbaum, Michael | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/01/2023 |
| Stein, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Tenenbaum, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Reedy, Rita | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/07/2023 | |
| Ferguson, Harold | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Reedy, Rita | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/07/2023 | |
| Stein, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Tenenbaum, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2023 |
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.