4375 South County Road 25 a, Tipp City, OH 45371 · Miami County · (937) 667-7500
99 certified beds, about 88 residents a day · Non profit - Other · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365882 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 3, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since July 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 3.36 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.58 of those hours.
47.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Otterbein Seniorlife, an affiliated group of 20 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 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interviews, medical record review, physician wound documentation review, hospital documentation review, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) guidleine review, and policy review, the facility failed to transcribe and implement treatment orders timely for the treatment of pressure ulcers for two (#68 and #80) residents. Actual harm occurred to one resident (#68) when wound care orders were not timely implemented on admission, and the resident received no treatment or intervention from the facility for pressure areas that were present on admission. Resident #68 was admitted with a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the sacrum/coccyx area on 01/31/25 and received no treatment until 02/04/25, after the wound increased to an unstageable wound. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interviews, family interview, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure meals were served to residents at a safe temperature and palatable. This affected four (#12, #45, #55 and #70) of five residents reviewed for food. This had the potential to affect all the residents . The facility identified there were not any residents who could not eat anything by mouth. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was a clean environment and food was served in a safe manner. This affected all of the residents. The facility identified all the residents received meals from the kitchen. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, observations, record review, review of infection tracking, policy review, Centers for Disease (CDC) guidelines review, review of testing documentation, review of water testing results and water testing staff interviews, the facility failed to wear proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when providing resident care for residents in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), failed to ensure complete hand hygiene during a dressing change, failed to timely monitor infection tracking and monitoring was accurately and timely maintained, the facility failed to provide updated policies to address Legionella, and provide scheduled monitoring procedures of at risk water systems and provide a system approach to a positive Legionella testing. This had to affect all residents in the faciltiy. The faciltiy census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, revealed the facility failed to notified Resident Representative when change in health status occurred requiring medications and laboratory testing. This affected one (#76) of two residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to investigate injury of unknown origin. This affected one (#238) of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the plan of care reflected the resident preferences for physician participation in urinary catheter care. This affected one (#45) of three resident reviewed for catheter care. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, family interview, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received assistance with their Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). This affected one (#24) of five residents reviewed for ADL assistance. The faciltiy census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the activity calendar, medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was an activity program that met the needs of the residents. This affected two (#29 and #70) of three residents reviewed for activities. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to timely assess, timely obtain treatments, clarify physician orders and complete physician orders. This affected three (#55, #75 and #76) of three residents reviewed for skin impairment. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the policy, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to determine and identify potential hazards and resident-specific interventions to reduce and/or eliminate falls. Additionally, the facility failed to implement required equipment in place to prevent accidents. This affected three (#8, #76, #237) of three residents reviewed for falls or accidents. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely initiate treatments to treat urinary tract infections. This affected one (#76) of three residents reviewed for antibiotic administration. The facility census is 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, family interview, policy review, Centers for Disease (CDC) guidance review, and hospital documentation review, the facility failed to ensure the prescribed duration of antibiotics had been provided for Clostridioides Difficile (C-Diff). This affected one (#24) of seven reviewed. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication was safely and appropriately stored. This affected three (#11, #68, #75) of three residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party of the need to change treatment to a pressure ulcer. This affected one (Resident #29) of three residents reviewed. The census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented after a resident suffered a fall. This affected one (Resident #29) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility censes was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility water management program, staff interview, and review of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Survey and Certification memo, the facility failed to ensure preventive measures for Legionella were completed according to their water management plan. This had the potential to affect all 95 residents at the facility. The facility census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility documentation review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain appropriate water temperatures. This had the potential to affect 83 out of 95 residents in the facility. There were 12 residents (Resident #17, #18, #22, #24, #48, #51, #54, #58, #69, #78, #86, and #87) who did not have access to the water in the front bathroom, room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], 100 hall shower room, and 200 hall shower room. The facility census was 95.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/29/20. admission diagnoses included repeated falls, heart failure, acute kidney failure, diabetes, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Review of Resident #39's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 was cognitively intact. Review of the MDS revealed Resident #39 required limited assistance with one-person for toileting. Resident #39 required supervision with one-person assistance for personal hygiene. Review of Resident #39's plan of care dated 04/05/22 revealed the resident had a suprapubic catheter related to neurogenic bladder. Interventions included change drainage bag per policy and to provide catheter care every shift per policy. Observation on 06/21/22 at 12:55 P.M. revealed Resident #39 was in the common dining room eating her lunch with other residents on her hall. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the reason for transfer/discharge to the hospital. This affected one (Resident #36) out of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 95.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of medical record for Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 08/11/21 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed she was hospitalized on [DATE]. There was no evidence Resident #36's representative was notified of the facility bed hold policy. Interview on 06/22/22 at 3:55 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified there was no evidence of Resident #36's representative having been notified of the bed hold notice policy for Resident #36's hospitalization/discharge on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided adequate positioning while seated in a wheelchair. This affected one (Resident #86) out of three residents reviewed for positioning. The census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. This affected one resident (Resident #40) out of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Council meeting minutes, Resident Council group interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow up on resident concerns of staff not passing out evening snacks. This had the potential to affect three (#14, #51, and #74) residents present in the Resident Council meetings. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident funds record review, medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or responsible party when the trust fund account balance was within $200.000 of the Medicaid limit for two (#20 and #43) of five residents reviewed for funds managed by the facility. The facikity identified 26 residents with trust fund accounts. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative the facility's bed hold and reserve bed payment policy when the resident representative elected to have the resident transferred to the hospital. This affected one (#102) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were submitted to the Centers for Medicaid/Medicare Services (CMS) for one (Resident #2) of one resident reviewed for MDS submission. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate. This affected two (#79 and #93) of 22 resident records reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. The census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, observation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide care to the gastrostomy tube (G Tube) insertion site for one (#309) of two residents in the facility and reviewed for G Tube care. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to offer/provide non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of as needed (prn) psychotropic medication. This affected one (#79) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The facility identified 28 residents receiving antianxiety medication. The census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to administer insulin as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#63) of one residents observed for insulin administration. The census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff and physician interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician of abnormal laboratory results for one (#316) of seven residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The total resident census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review; the facility failed to ensure staff maintained good infection control practices, including hand hygiene, while administering medication. This affected two (#37 and #63) of five resident observed during medication administration. The census was 106.
3 fire safety citations on file: 2 on April 3, 2025, 1 on July 18, 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) | 3.36 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.93 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.80 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.98 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 47.4% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 21.4% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.78 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 3.53 on weekdays and 2.93 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.55 in April to June 2025 to 3.36 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 | 3.36 | 0.58 | 3.53 | 2.93 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 88 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.28 | 0.64 | 3.46 | 2.82 | 4.1% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.51 | 0.64 | 3.71 | 3.02 | 6.1% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.55 | 0.61 | 3.73 | 3.09 | 11.9% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| 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 | 4.8 | 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 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.1 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.2 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Springmeade Healthcenter's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.9% 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. 221 eligible stays.
11.3% 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. 242 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 137 eligible stays.
35.6% 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. 101 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 136 residents counted.
1.9% 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. 136 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 5 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: OTTERBEIN TIPP CITY LLC. CMS links this home to Otterbein Seniorlife, a group of 20 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otterbein Lsc, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/16/2024 |
| Otterbein Home | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/16/2024 |
| Green, James | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Miller, Jason | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Vonderhaar, Steve | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Wilson, Jill | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Green, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Madireddy, Naga | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Miller, Jason | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Pegg, Pepper | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/19/2025 | |
| Wilson, Jill | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| App, Lynn | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Bartlett, Victoria | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Bayliff, Rebecca | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Brownson, William | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Burke, Daniel | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Coleman, Robert | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Fraley, Ralph | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Glosser, Heidi | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Hazelbaker, Tomas | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Vonderhaar, Steve | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/06/2025 | |
| Wilson, Jill | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/26/2026 | |
| Otterbein Home | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2024 | |
| Otterbein Real Estate, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2024 | |
| Otterbein Tipp City Real Estate, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2024 | |
| Madireddy, Naga | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/16/2024 | |
| Pegg, Pepper | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/19/2025 |
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.