REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Regency Care of Copley has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #327 out of 913 in Ohio, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and #14 out of 42 in Summit County, meaning only 13 local options are rated higher. However, the facility is currently worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 2 in 2025. Staffing is a significant concern, as it received a poor rating of 0/5 stars, and while turnover is low at 0%, the lack of adequate staffing is alarming. Notably, the facility has had no fines, which is a positive aspect, and it offers more RN coverage than many others, suggesting strong oversight. On the downside, there have been some serious incidents, including a resident suffering a humeral fracture during care due to a lack of proper behavioral management. Additionally, the facility failed to adequately screen employees for past abuse or neglect, which could jeopardize resident safety. Observations also revealed unsanitary conditions with dirty meal carts, indicating potential hygiene issues. Overall, while Regency Care of Copley has strengths in its low fines and decent trust grade, families should be cautious about staffing issues and the recent uptick in problems.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Ohio
- #327/913
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
No Significant Concerns Identified
This facility shows no red flags. Among Ohio's 100 nursing homes, only 0% achieve this.
The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, interview, review of nursing schedules for 07/15/25 through 07/21/25, review of the purchas...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, medical record review, review of facility policies, and review of the facility investigation of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent exit seeking ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0742
(Tag F0742)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, review of a Self-Reported Incident (SRI), review of witness statements, resident in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to thorough assess Resident #33's pressure ulcer, notify the physician of the pressure ulcer, and timely ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #18's head was elevated per the physician's order while receiving continuous tube feeding. This affected one ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, observation, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medicati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from the medication cart and the medication storage room. This affected one r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean, sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 47 of the 49 residents, excluding Resident #1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control was maintained throughout the facility related to COVID-19 and cathete...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to timely vaccinate residents for COVID-19 after consents were signed to receive the vaccine. This affected four residents (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2019
14 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to have consistent documentation related to Resident's #47 and #54's wishes related to life-sustaining treatments. This affecte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on recorded review and interview, the facility failed to provide the correct Quality Improvement Organization Appeal information (QIO) on their Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter for Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A medical record review revealed Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of chronic ischemic h...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing programs as...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Resident #32 with intervention to prevent con...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to timely address Resident #15's weight loss. This affec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician's order laboratory tests for Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and review of resident funds, the facility failed to have evidence Resident's #20, #41, #49 and #54 and/or representative were notified when their account reached $200.00 less than ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a home like environment. This affected Residents #11, #12, #15, and #48 of 58 residents who reside in the facility.
Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, review of manufacture guidelines and review of the facility policy, the facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interview, review of personnel files and the abuse policy and procedure, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures including screening of all employees against the State ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
2. Observation on 10/15/19 at 11:50 AM revealed the closed metal meal cart came of out to the Emerald unit with lunch trays. The outside of the meal cart had a large amount of a white substance and a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and review of pest control documentation, the facility failed to maintain a pest free environment. This affected all 58 residents in the facility.
Findings include:
The...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee attendance records, the facility failed to ensure the QAA committee ensured the Medical Director or his/her design...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2018
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #17) received written notification of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of weakness, post-traumatic osteoarthritis and anxiety diso...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, resident council meeting minutes review and recipe review, the facility did not ensure Resident #2's dietary preferences were honored. This affected one resident (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms and common areas were kept clean...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, dish machine temperature log review, dish machine instructions review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean manner, dishware was prop...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- • 30 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Regency Care Of Copley's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Regency Care Of Copley Staffed?
Detailed staffing data for REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY is not available in the current CMS dataset.
What Have Inspectors Found at Regency Care Of Copley?
State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 28 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Regency Care Of Copley?
REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 70 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in AKRON, Ohio.
How Does Regency Care Of Copley Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Regency Care Of Copley?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Regency Care Of Copley Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Regency Care Of Copley Stick Around?
REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Regency Care Of Copley Ever Fined?
REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Regency Care Of Copley on Any Federal Watch List?
REGENCY CARE OF COPLEY is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.