230 Cherry St., Chillicothe, OH 45601 · Ross County · (740) 773-6470
139 certified beds, about 87 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365597 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 20, 2026, inspectors cited 23 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 64 health citations since August 2022 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 3.17 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.35 of those hours.
55.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Carecore Health, an affiliated group of 12 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 64 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staffing schedules and staff interview, this facility failed to ensure the facility had Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for eight consecutive hours for four days out of the last two months. This had the potential to affect all 84 residents currently residing at this facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored appropriately. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was free from flies. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and staff record review, the facility failed to ensure the required annual training was completed for three Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) (#242, #221, #413). Further, the facility failed to ensure the additional training for the care of the cognitively impaired was completed for three CNA's (#239, #414, #277). This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the resident council meeting minutes, residents interviews, staff interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident and family concerns were addressed in a timely manner. This affected 10 Resident (#7, #9, #20, #25, #32, #43, #45, #68, #69, and #82). Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for four residents (#13, #35, #47, and #81) of six reviewed for environment. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were completed quarterly for Resident #11. This affected one of one resident investigated for care conferences. The facility identified 32 other residents that had not had a care conference completed in the second quarter of 2026 (Residents #2, #6, #7, #9, #12, #13, #14, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #24, #25, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #44, and #98). The facility census was 84. Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with intact cognition and had diagnoses that included fibromyalgia, chronic respiratory failure, and atherosclerotic heart disease. Review of Resident #11's most recent care conference notes revealed a care conference was held on 10/13/25 and 01/16/26. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored appropriately and that medication carts were free from expired medications. This affected the following 49 residents receiving medications from the three medication carts observed: Residents #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12, #14, #16, #19, #23, #25, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #35, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #44, #45, #48, #50, #54, #55, #57, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #67, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #75, #84, #85, #88, and #97. Facility also failed to ensure prescription medication was not left at the bedside for Resident #50. This had the potential to affect seven residents (#3, #24, #35, #37, #47, #84, and #88) who the facility identified as cognitively impaired and mobile. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an advance directive form in a timely manner for Resident #11. This affected one of one resident investigated for advanced directives. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident representative was notified of a fall. This affected one resident (#93) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints. This affected one resident (#94) of three residents reviewed for restraints. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident to resident abuse to the state agency. This affected one resident (#56) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure discharge planning was in place. This affected one resident (#56) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, this facility failed to notify the ombudsman of resident discharge. This affected two residents (#2 and #92) of the three residents reviewed for discharge process. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of residents Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) assessment and facility policy review, this facility failed to ensure the appropriate, State-designated authority was notified of an individuals newly identified or diagnosed intellectual disability or mental disorder. This affected two residents (#4 and #7) of the three residents reviewed for appropriate PASARR assessments. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was in place for wandering for two residents (#35 and #47) and a care plan for toenail was in place for one resident (#81). This affected three Resident (#35, #47 and #81) of 24 reviewed for the initial sample. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#3), of nine residents the facility identified as needing maximal assistance with eating, receive assistance with eating. Further, the facility failed to ensure toenail care was provided for one resident, (#81) of three residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, review of the medical record, and review of the facility policy, facility failed to ensure timely communication and care for a resident receiving hospice services. This affected one resident (#35) of one reviewed for hospice services. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure residents were properly assessed and interventions were put in place when residents were moved from the secured memory care unit to an unsecured unit. This affected three Resident (#35, #47 and #81) of three reviewed for elopement risk. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. This affected two of six residents observed for medication administration (Resident #62 and #72). The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #72 was free from significant medication errors. This affected one of six residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure routine dental services were provided for Resident #11. This affected one of two residents investigated for dental concerns. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the residents' medical record was maintained in an accurate manner. This affected one residents (#69) of 24 Resident records reviewed in the initial pool. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain the substitution log. This had potential to affect all facility residents. Facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary food storage, ensure food holding temperatures were maintained in a safe range and ensure kitchen staff was trained on proper use of the dishwasher. This had potential to affect all facility residents. Facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had ready and reasonable access to their personal funds handled by the facility in the evening and on weekends. This could affect 50 of 50 residents whose funds were handled by the facility (Residents #73, #32, #3, #55, #48, #90, #51, #9, #78, #65, #24, #85, #76, #23, #72, #70, #347, #10, #19, #12, #5, #7, #61, #86, #2, #50, #62, #54, #64, #63, #82, #44, #15, #38, #13, #36, #69, #81, #49, #14, #52, #8, #28, #21, #11, #147, #71, #68, #31, and #17). The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff and resident interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure comfortable water temperatures. This affected 31 Residents (#2, #4, #10, #11, #13, #14, #17, #19, #21, #23, #32, #33, #44, #46, #51, #54, #55 #59, #64, #67, #78, #79, #80, #82, #86, #87, #88, #90, #91, #92, and #146.) Facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated in a dignified manner related to an indwelling urinary catheter collection bag. This affected one (Resident #89) of one resident reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter usage. The census was 94. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personal fund records and staff interview, the facility failed to notify a resident/responsible party when the amount in the resident's account reached $200 less than the resource limit for one person and that, if the amount in the account reached the resource limit for one person, the resident may lose eligibility for Medicaid or Social Security. This affected one (Resident #2) of 50 residents whose funds were handled by the facility. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident's physician was notified of blood sugars outside of the physician ordered parameters. This affected one (Resident #70) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 94. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #70 revealed an initial admission date of 02/07/24 with the latest readmission of 08/28/24 with the diagnoses including but not limited to Rhabdomyolysis, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), benign prostatic hyperplasia, hyperlipidemia, pain, dementia, peripheral vascular disease, intellectual disabilities, major depressive disorder, nicotine dependence, legal blindness, schizoaffective disorder, hypertension, acquired absence of left foot, insomnia, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain personal privacy for a resident during a dressing change. This affected one (Resident #74) of two residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#89) comprehensive assessment was accurate. This affected one resident (#89) of one resident reviewed for dental .The facility census was 94. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #89 revealed an initial admission date of 07/25/24 with the latest readmission of 01/11/25 with the diagnoses including but not limited to cerebral infarction, intervertebral disc degeneration of lumbosacral region, visual loss, acute kidney failure, encephalopathy, slow transit constipation, subdural hemorrhage, history of traumatic brain injury, dementia, anemia, osteoarthritis, obstructive and reflux uropathy, hypertension, hydronephrosis, anxiety disorder, hearing loss, chronic pain, hyperlipidemia, malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of right female breast. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate in the areas of safe smoking, dental status, and mental health diagnoses. This affected three (Residents #6, #70, and #89) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) assessments for Residents #7, #32 and #81 for mental health diagnosis. This affected three (Resident #7, #32 and #81) of five residents reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteReview of the medical record, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) within 30 days following admission for one resident. This affected one (Resident #18) of five residents reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an initial admission date of 09/16/24 with the diagnoses including but not limited to wedge compression fracture of thoracic 11 and thoracic 12 vertebra, neuropathy, severe morbid obesity, vitamin D deficiency, obstructive sleep apnea, dorsalgia, dipolar disorder, insomnia, overactive bladder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, spinal stenosis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus and restless leg syndrome. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive plan of care in the area of smoking, activities of daily living (ADL) and dental. This affected three residents (#6, #75, #89) of 19 sampled residents. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were updated. This affected two residents (#13 and #67) who were involved in a resident to resident altercation and a third resident (#17) after a fall out of 25 resident careplans reviewed. Facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide meal assistance for one resident (#9) and provide nail care for one resident (#89), who was dependent on staff. This affected two (Resident #9 and #89) of four residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 94. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #9 revealed an initial admission date of 12/21/21 with the diagnoses including but not limited to cerebrovascular accident with right sided hemiplegia, anorexia, hyperlipidemia, palliative care, age related physical debility, osteoporosis, hypertension, psychotic disorder with delusions and hallucinations. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain hospice records. This affected one Resident (#67) of one reviewed for hospice. Facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe smoking for two residents (#6, #75). Additionally the facility failed to ensure safe hot water temperatures for three residents (#9, #79, #89). This affected two ( Resident #6 and #75) of three resident reviewed for smoking and three ( Resident #9, #79, and #89) of 19 sampled residents for water temperatures. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: 1. On 01/27/25 at 12:38 P.M., observation of Resident #9's room water temperature revealed a temperature of 131.2 degrees. On 01/27/25 at 12:45 P.M., interview with Maintenance Director (MD) #228 verified the water temperature was above the maximum 120 degree limit. 2. On 01/27/25 at 12:23 P.M., observation of Resident #89's water temperature in the bathroom revealed a temperature of 125.7 degrees. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to fluids and bedside. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure one resident received beverages with meals. This affected three ( #8, #9, and #89) of four residents reviewed for hydration. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor one resident's blood pressure prior to the administration of the medication Hydralazine (a medication used to lower blood pressure). This affected one ( Resident #70) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to obtain Physician ordered labs for residents. This affected two (Resident #70, and #81) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident received dental services. This affected one resident (#89) of two residents reviewed for dental. The facility census was 94. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #89 revealed an initial admission date of 07/25/24 with the latest readmission of 01/11/25 with the diagnoses including but not limited to cerebral infarction, intervertebral disc degeneration of lumbosacral region, visual loss, acute kidney failure, encephalopathy, slow transit constipation, subdural hemorrhage, history of traumatic brain injury, dementia, anemia, osteoarthritis, obstructive and reflux uropathy, hypertension, hydronephrosis, anxiety disorder, hearing loss, chronic pain, hyperlipidemia, malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of right female breast. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review ,and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmission of infections when they failed to use proper hand hygiene during a dressing change, and failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions. This affected one (Resident #74) of two residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an adequate resident call system to allow residents to call for staff assistance. This affected two residents (Residents # 48 and #20) of the 30 residents reviewed for call light function in the facility. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to provide a functional comfortable environment when the walls were in disrepair. This affected one (Resident #65) of two residents reviewed for environmental issues. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff and resident interview, and review of the facility menu, the facility failed to follow weekly menus and have requested items available. This had the potential to affect 90 residents who receive their meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods were stored in at appropriate temperatures in order to prevent foodborne illness. This had the potential to affect all 109 residents who consumed foods prepared and stored in the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#97) who did not receive foods prepared/stored in the kitchen and was to receive nothing by mouth. The census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, medical record review, review of facility census, review of COVID tracking log, review of the facility staff and visitor COVID-19 screening questionnaire log and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff used the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care to residents who were either positive for COVID-19 or in quarantine for possible COVID-19; failed to ensure staff sanitized or wash their hands after removing gloves; failed to ensure proper signage was posted for residents in isolation/quarantine; failed to properly quarantine residents with possible COVID-19 exposure; and failed to properly screen residents and visitors for symptoms of COVID-19. This had the potential to affect 110 of 110 residents residing at the facility. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff and family interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean homelike environment. This affected 22 residents (#08, #18, #35, #50, #56, #58, #80, #86, #26, #43, #35, #52, #51, #53, #88, #39, #01, #61, #69, #77, #03, and #207) of 110 residents environment observed. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff transferred a resident who was non weight bearing on one leg safely. This affected one resident (#404) of five residents reviewed for falls. In addition, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision of smoking materials for resident's who smoked. This affected three residents (#30, #66, and #451) of three residents reviewed for smoking. The facility identified 27 residents (#02, #09, #10, #12, #14, #16, #21, #30, #33, #38, #47, #48, #64, #65, #67, #70, #74, #76, #77, #78, #79, #83, #88, #89, #94, #100, and #457) who smoked at the facility. Residents #66 and #451 were not identified by the facility as smokers. In addition, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision of medication administration to ensure medications were not left at bedside. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, which included monitoring weight status and following up on nutritional recommendations. This affected five residents (#25, #33, #61, #97, and #404) of 11 residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to follow the policy of disposing of food waste in the kitchen in containers with tight fitting lids. The finding potentially affected 109 residents who consumed foods prepared in the kitchen except for Resident #97 who consumed nothing by mouth. The census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the Resident COVID-19 Vaccination Log, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives were offered COVID-19 vaccines and/or boosters and were provided education regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. This affected 11 (Residents #25, #30, #33, #34, #35, #50, #56, #58, #86, #95, and #453) out of 11 residents reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and family interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe and comfortable environment on the Three [NAME] Unit. This had the potential to affect all 22 residents (#8, #11, #15, #18, #19, #26, #31, #35, #42, #43, #45, #50, #56, #58, #68, #72, #80, #81, #85, #86, #96, and #351) residing on the Three [NAME] Unit. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment using the resident assessment instrument (RAI) within 14 calendar days after admission. This affected one resident (#404) of three residents reviewed who were admitted within the past 30 days. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to accurately document a residents assessment on the resident assessment instrument. This affected one resident (#03) of 35 resident assessments reviewed. The facility census was 110. Findings Include: Review of Resident #03's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/25/18. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, dementia without behaviors, congestive heart failure, osteoporosis and history of falls. Review of the physician orders for July 2022 revealed Resident #03 received passive range of motion for movement and prevention of contractures, admitted to hospice services, a regular pureed texture diet with thin liquids, double portions for weight loss and a Boost (supplement) 240 milliliters by mouth three times daily for weight loss. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for an individual with a mental disorder. This affected one resident (#25) of five residents reviewed for PASRR. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the self-reported incident (SRI), interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were discharged to a safe location. This affected one resident (#73) of four residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to provide assistance with adequate nail care, hair care and bathing. This affected one resident (#95) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of personal finances, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide medically-related social services for a resident who needed assistance with financial matters. This affected one (#70) of 35 sampled residents. The facility census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide an effective pest control program. This affected two (Resident #17 and #41) out of three residents reviewed for pest control. The census was 110.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the survey postings and staff interview, the facility failed to provide posting for the most recent statements of deficiencies since 01/27/22. This had the potential to affect all 110 residents who reside in the facility.
24 fire safety citations on file: 4 on July 20, 2026, 8 on January 30, 2025, 12 on August 2, 2022.
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) | 3.17 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.35 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.88 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.75 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.08 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 55.2% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.06 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 3.29 on weekdays and 2.88 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.15 in April to June 2025 to 3.17 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 | 3.17 | 0.35 | 3.29 | 2.88 | 11.7% | 0 of 90 | 87 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.30 | 0.41 | 3.43 | 2.98 | 25.5% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.21 | 0.37 | 3.28 | 3.03 | 24.4% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.15 | 0.36 | 3.20 | 3.03 | 19.8% | 0 of 91 | 91 |
| 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 | 4.0 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 43.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| 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 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Westmoreland Place's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.2% 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. 27 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 54 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 31 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.
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. 13 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: 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. 18 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: 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. 18 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. 3 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: WESTMORELAND AT CARECORE LLC. CMS links this home to Carecore Health, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customers Bank | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 08/14/2020 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Corporate director | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Joseph | Corporate director | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Carecore Health LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Ruksenas, Audrius | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Williams, Candice | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Carecore Health LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2017 | |
| Fasten Halberstam LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2017 | |
| Westmoreland Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Hertanu, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Ruksenas, Audrius | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/12/2025 | |
| Williams, Candice | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
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.