BOWLING GREEN MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Bowling Green Manor has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families seeking care, sitting in the top half of nursing homes in Ohio at #226 out of 913 facilities. In Wood County, it ranks #5 out of 11, which means there are only four other local options that are better. However, the facility's trend is concerning as it has worsened, increasing from 3 issues in 2022 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of just 29%, significantly lower than the Ohio average, although RN coverage is rated as average. Notably, the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign. On the downside, recent inspector findings raised concerns regarding meal quality and food safety practices. For example, staff failed to ensure that food was stored properly, leading to potential contamination risks, and many residents reported that their meals were not palatable or properly cooked. Additionally, the facility did not maintain adequate documentation for required quality assessment meetings, which could affect overall resident care. While Bowling Green Manor has strengths in staffing and no fines, families should be aware of these significant issues when considering care for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Ohio
- #226/913
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Ohio's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (29%)
19 points below Ohio average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
9 deficiencies
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed accurately...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident interview, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were comprehensive and included care n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility's bowel protocol, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for constipation had bowel interventions implemented as dir...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident interview, medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility admission Agreement, the facility failed to maintain safe smoking practices. This affected t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility's skills competency for pain management document, the facility failed to ensure pain assessments were completed with the admi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident meals were palatable. This affected all residents, except 31(#6, #8, #10...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview, review of the pureed food recipe and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pureed foods were prepared to an appropriate consistency. This affe...
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
3. Observation on 02/12/25 at 10:50 A.M. of the kitchen revealed Dietary Manager (DM) #546 donned gloves, without performing hand hygiene prior donning the gloves. Continued observation revealed DM #5...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based of review of the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee meeting sign in sheets, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the required personnel were...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
3 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, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment af...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to accurately...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2019
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #224, revealed an admission date of 09/26/19. Diagnoses included unspecified dement...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident at risk for co...
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 interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents who ...
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 major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Ohio's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Bowling Green Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BOWLING GREEN MANOR 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 Bowling Green Manor Staffed?
CMS rates BOWLING GREEN MANOR's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Bowling Green Manor?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at BOWLING GREEN MANOR during 2019 to 2025. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Bowling Green Manor?
BOWLING GREEN MANOR is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by HCF MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BOWLING GREEN, Ohio.
How Does Bowling Green Manor Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, BOWLING GREEN MANOR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bowling Green Manor?
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 Bowling Green Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BOWLING GREEN MANOR 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 Bowling Green Manor Stick Around?
Staff at BOWLING GREEN MANOR tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 17 percentage points below the Ohio average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 18%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Bowling Green Manor Ever Fined?
BOWLING GREEN MANOR 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 Bowling Green Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
BOWLING GREEN MANOR 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.