OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Otterbein Union Township has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below average quality and raising some concerns for families considering this nursing home. It ranks #757 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and #13 out of 15 in Clermont County, meaning there are only two better options locally. The facility's issues have remained stable over the past few years, with one incident reported in both 2024 and 2025. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4/5 rating and a turnover rate of 43%, which is better than the state average, suggesting that many staff members stay long-term and build relationships with residents. However, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident being injured during a transfer due to improper procedures and another resident receiving the wrong medication, both of which resulted in actual harm. On a positive note, the facility has not incurred any fines, and their RN coverage is average, meaning they have enough registered nurses to oversee care effectively. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this home for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Ohio
- #757/913
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Ohio. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below Ohio average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Ohio average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Base...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 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** THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.
Bas...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
11 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to verify a resident's (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to timely notify a physician of a resident's signi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide an o...
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 observation, staff inteview, and resident interview, the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care. This affe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to timely monit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and review of personnel files, the facility failed to ensure an annual performance review was completed for State Tested Nursing Assistant (SNTA) #2. This affected one (STNA #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 identify the reason for the use of as needed (PRN) na...
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to properly label insulin medication. This affected two (Residents #13 and #21) and had the potential to affect 10 residents (#13, #21, #2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, resident interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide food portions and menus as approved by a Registered Dietitian. This had the potential to affect all 58 residents who ...
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, staff interviews, review of manufacture directions, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to aff...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2019
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a written notice including...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to revise care plans with fall interventions and specific medical devices in use. This affected...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment for hearing loss. This affected one (Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to administer a resident's medication as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#5) of thirteen residents reviewed in the final sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to discard expired medications, fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2018
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
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 implement a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and resident and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident who was prescribe...
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, staff interview, review of facility policy, and review of manufacturer's guidelines the facility failed to properly store insulin. This affected one Resident (#8) who resided in ...
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 observation, staff interview, review of the census and review of facility policy the facility failed to store and properly label foods that were thawing in the refrigerator. This had the pote...
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.
- • 43% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 23 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Otterbein Union Township's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Otterbein Union Township Staffed?
CMS rates OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Otterbein Union Township?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP during 2018 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Otterbein Union Township?
OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by OTTERBEIN SENIORLIFE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BATAVIA, Ohio.
How Does Otterbein Union Township Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Otterbein Union Township?
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 Otterbein Union Township Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Otterbein Union Township Stick Around?
OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Ohio nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Otterbein Union Township Ever Fined?
OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP 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 Otterbein Union Township on Any Federal Watch List?
OTTERBEIN UNION TOWNSHIP 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.