789 Stoneybrook Trail, Fairborn, OH 45324 · Greene County · (937) 878-0262
94 certified beds, about 85 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365979 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 25, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 36 health citations since May 2019 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 3.82 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.47 of those hours.
56.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to United Church Homes, an affiliated group of 9 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident interviews, staff interviews, an interview with the pest control provider, review of pest control invoices, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This affected three (Residents #62, #70, and #71) of six residents sampled for pest control and had the potential to affect all 21 residents living on the 400-Hall. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain communication for dialysis services and failed to ensure post-dialysis assessments were completed. This affected Resident #62, the only resident at the facility who received dialysis services. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs) and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free were free from abuse. This affected one (Resident (#17) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 84 residents.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs) and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported immediately to the state agency. This affected one (Resident (#17) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 84 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff interviews, interview with the local Health Department staff, review of facility policies, review of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, and review of Ohio Department of Health's (ODH) guidance for reporting infectious diseases, the facility failed to develop and implement effective infection control procedures which included when and to who potentially communicable diseases should be reported, failed to ensure the local Health Department was notified in a timely manner of a facility gastrointestinal illness (GI) outbreak and failed to track the residents and employees who developed GI related symptoms as part of their infection surveillance plan. This affected 13 Residents (#24, #22 #10, #35, #68, #66, #27, #02, #59, #07, #61, #237, #236, and #11) but had the potential to affect all residents at the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, facility protocol, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician or the non-physician practitioner (NPP) for residents with change in conditions. This affected three Residents (#05, #70, and #71) reviewed for changes in condition. The facility census was 88. Findings Included: 1) Review of medical record for Resident #05 revealed an admission date on 05/26/20. Diagnosis included obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, adult failure to thrive, Alzheimer's disease, chronic kidney disease stage two, orthostatic hypotension, essential hypertension, dementia, history of transient ischemic attack, and nonrheumatic aortic stenosis. Review of Resident #05's blood pressure monitoring revealed the following blood pressures documented: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to issue an Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) when a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was issued to a resident under a Medicare stay and the resident did not discharge. This affected one Resident (#77) out of the three residents reviewed for ABN. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and safe environment. This affected three Residents (#13, #64, and #08) out of three Residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a Pre admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) following a significant change in residents' condition. This affected two Residents (#10 and #41) out of two residents reviewed for a PASRR. The facility census was 88. Findings Include: 1) Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed she was admitted to 10/13/21. Her diagnoses included diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatic failure, gastroparesis, contracture of muscle, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, dementia, and pseudobulbar. Resident #10 was admitted to hospice care at the facility on 04/23/24. There was no correlating PASRR associated with the admission to Hospice. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #10 is cognitively impaired. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with quarterly care conferences. This affected two Residents (#08 and #64) out of the two residents reviewed for care conference. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's suprapubic urinary catheter was changed according to physician orders. This affected one Resident (#79) of the three residents review for foley catheters. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, staff interviews, review of facility policy, and review of facility standing orders, the facility failed to ensure residents received medications as ordered. This affected one Resident (#05) of the five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' medications were stored properly. This affected one Resident (#26) out of the three residents reviewed. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This affected Resident (#13) and had the potential to affect all 23 Residents living on the 200 unit. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview ,record review, facilities investigation review, and policy review, revealed the facility failed to implement abuse policies to report allegations of resident abuse. This affected one resident, (Resident #25) of three residents reviewed for reporting abuse . The total facility census was 86. Findings Include: Record review of alleged victim Resident #25 revealed the resident was admitted to the attached skilled living facility on 11/19/20. The resident had a legal guardian and resided on the skilled living unit. Diagnoses for Resident #25 included age related physical debility, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, morbid obesity, dementia, psychosis, communication deficit, depressive disorder, muscle weakness, intellectual disabilities, and cerebrovascular disease. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review, facility investigation report, and policy review, revealed the facility failed to report allegations of abuse. This affected one resident, (Resident #25) of three residents reviewed for reporting abuse. The total facility census was 86. Findings Include: Record review of alleged victim Resident #25 revealed the resident was admitted to the attached skilled living facility on 11/19/20. The resident had a legal guardian and resided on the skilled living unit. Diagnoses for Resident #25 included age related physical debility, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, morbid obesity, dementia, psychosis, communication deficit, depressive disorder, muscle weakness, intellectual disabilities, and cerebrovascular disease. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's representative was notified of medication changes. This affected one (Resident #84) of three residents reviewed for notifications. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the admission agreement was signed or explained to the resident or resident's representative. This affected one (Resident #84) of three residents reviewed for admission agreements. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff and local health department personnel interview, review of the facility policy, and review of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the facility failed to properly isolate residents placed in transmission-based precautions (TBP) per CDC guidelines for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections to potentially prevent the spread of COVID-19. This affected four (#74, #68, #25, and #12) of eight residents reviewed for transmission-based precautions and infection control practices. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident and the Ombudsman of a transfer or discharge from the facility. This affected two (#79 and #330) out of two residents reviewed for discharge notification from the facility. The facility census was 81. Findings Include: Review of medical record for Resident #79 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Diagnosis included metabolic encephalopathy, acute neurologic, rhabdomyolysis, pleural effusion, dementia with behavioral disturbance, essential primary hypertension, diabetes mellitus 2, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure and history of malignant neoplasm of prostate. Review of the five day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/15/21 revealed Resident #79's cognition was not assessed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify residents of the facility bed hold policy prior to discharge from the facility. This affected two (#77, # 330) out of two residents reviewed for the bed hold policy. Facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASARR) was in place for Resident #47 and #48. This affected two (#47 and #48) out of two residents reviewed for PASARR status. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to address resident care needs including medical skin condition, a resident's medical diagnosis and a resident's smoking. This affected three (#15, #61 and #47) of twenty-three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure palm protectors were placed on a resident with limited range of motion per the physician order. This affected one (#21) of two reviewed for range of motion. Facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's laboratory (lab) work was completed per the physician orders. This affected one (#15) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a residents meal was provided per the residents order and meal ticket. This affected one (#26) of three residents reviewed during the lunch observation. The census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an assistive device was provided to a resident during a meal. This affected one (#26) of three resident's reviewed for adaptive equipment during the annual survey. Facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, home-like environment. This affected one (#48) out of three residents reviewed for a clean environment. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician received and responded to a resident medication not being available for administration. This involved one (#12) of three sampled residents reviewed for physician notice. Facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were issued Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) notices upon discharge from Medicare Part A Services with benefit days remaining when they continued to reside in the facility. This affected two (#67 and #68) of three residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, review of facility submitted self reported incidents (SRIs), and review of facility policy, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to implement the facility policy on reporting allegations of verbal abuse. This affected three (#16, #21, and #80) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, review of facility submitted self reported incidents (SRIs), and review of facility policy, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to report allegations of verbal abuse to the state agency. This affected three (#16, #21, and #80) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure bed hold notices were provided timely upon hospitalization. This affected two (#21 and #34) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident representative and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). This affected one (#34) of four residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received care and treatment to non-pressure skin condition. This affected one (#34) of two residents reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance to the physician's orders. This involved one (#12) of three sampled residents reviewed for medication availability. Facility census was 79.
18 fire safety citations on file: 5 on February 25, 2025, 7 on January 12, 2022, 6 on May 16, 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) | 3.82 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.47 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.48 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.40 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.95 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 56.3% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 3.95 on weekdays and 3.48 on weekends, 12% 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 3.97 in April to June 2025 to 3.82 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 | 3.82 | 0.47 | 3.95 | 3.48 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 85 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.94 | 0.51 | 4.02 | 3.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.06 | 0.48 | 4.20 | 3.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.97 | 0.56 | 4.16 | 3.50 | 6.8% | 2 of 91 | 84 |
| 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 | 7.4 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.0 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.7 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Trinity Community at Fairborn's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.0% 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. 63 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 66 eligible stays.
9.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 56 eligible stays.
39.3% 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. 28 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. 36 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 36 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: UNITED CHURCH HOMES, INC.. CMS links this home to United Church Homes, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 3.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward, Stacie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/23/2011 | |
| Brownfield, Thomas | Corporate director | Individual | 12/31/2014 | |
| Green, Catherine | Corporate director | Individual | 12/31/2014 | |
| Henry, James | Corporate director | Individual | 12/31/2014 | |
| Kutschbach, Robert | Corporate director | Individual | 12/31/2014 | |
| Sheidler, Susan | Corporate director | Individual | 12/31/2014 | |
| Daniel, Kenneth | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2011 | |
| Dible, Richard | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/29/2016 | |
| Renner, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/27/2014 | |
| Daniel, Kenneth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2011 | |
| Renner, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/27/2014 |
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.