SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Signature Healthcare of Coshocton has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall performance. Ranking #779 out of 913 facilities in Ohio puts them in the bottom half, and they are the lowest-ranked option in Coshocton County. Although the facility's trend is improving, with a decrease in issues from 18 in 2024 to just 2 in 2025, they still face serious challenges. Staffing is a critical weakness, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 61%, which is concerning compared to the Ohio average of 49%. Additionally, the facility has incurred $60,645 in fines, indicating compliance problems, and there are alarming incidents, such as a resident being physically assaulted by another resident due to inadequate supervision and concerns about food safety practices in the kitchen. On the positive side, they provide more RN coverage than 90% of Ohio facilities, which helps catch issues that other staff might miss.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #779/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $60,645 in fines. Higher than 50% of Ohio facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Ohio. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 38 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
Below Ohio average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
15pts above Ohio avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
13 points above Ohio average of 48%
The Ugly 38 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain sanit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure weekly skin inspections were completed as indicated in the resident's comprehensive care plan. This affected one (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on self-reported incident review, medical record review, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the state survey agency in a timely manne...
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 medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately ref...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review ...
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
Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure there was consistent communication between the facility and the dialysis center regarding a resident's hemodialysis treatment...
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
Based on interview, record review, and pharmacy recommendations the facility failed to timely address pharmacy recommendation related to Resident #3's pain medication and lab work. This affected one (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant med...
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
2. Observation 10/08/24 at 7:40 A.M. revealed the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) administered medication to Resident #7. While in the room, whom she shares with Resident #35, a pill cup with sev...
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, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure a resident received dent...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide an appropriate assistive device to maintain/i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EB...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of invoices, review of alternative menu, review of the contract, observation, and interviews the facility failed to ensure alternate menu items were available. This had the potential t...
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure the ice machine was maintained and cold air-vents were cleaned. This had the potential to affect all 57-resident residing in the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
3 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
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medial record, review of the facility investigation, interview with the staff, and facility policy review...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interview with staff the facility to ensure staff used proper hand hygiene during medication administration. This affected three residents (#25, #51, and #54) of eight reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview with staff, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure three medication carts were locked when unattended. This had the potential to affect 12 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
3 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, review of a facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the ...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of a facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the facility's abuse policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Property, and interviews the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review, review of the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) Job Descriptions, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI) and investigation, and interviews the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent further potential abuse after allegations of staff being rough and making inappropriate ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to report allegations of rough handling by staff, inappropriate intimidating remarks made to residents, and allegations of mis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to investigate allegations of staff being rough and making inappropriate comments toward residents. This affected one resident...
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 medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately ref...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 all resident Pre-admission Screening and Resid...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #7 and/or her representative was pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain Resident #7's respiratory equipment in a clean manner and ensure the equipment was inspected and air filter exchanged ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were assessed for appropriate indication for use prior to initiating antibiotic therapy. Thi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to adequately inform/specify in writing, skilled service...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representatives were provided with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representatives were provided with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
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
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 medical record review, staff and family interview, the facility failed to notify the family of new physician orders. Th...
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
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff and family interview and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure a comp...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
3 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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
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 residents were free from significant medication errors when ...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff washed hands between residents during medication administration. This affected five (Residents #3, #13, #19, #28 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to prepare meals according to the menu. This had the pote...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
2 deficiencies
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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident #41's physician and responsible party of significantly elevated blood sugar levels. This affected one of five residents rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
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 new admissions were screened, offered and educated regarding ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $60,645 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 38 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $60,645 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON 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 Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton Staffed?
CMS rates SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 15 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton?
State health inspectors documented 38 deficiencies at SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 34 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton?
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON 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 SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 72 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COSHOCTON, Ohio.
How Does Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (61%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON is high. At 61%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton Ever Fined?
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON has been fined $60,645 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Ohio average of $33,685. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Signature Healthcare Of Coshocton on Any Federal Watch List?
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE OF COSHOCTON 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.