MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Maple Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall quality. It ranks #728 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and is the lowest-ranked option in Preble County. While the facility is improving from six issues in 2024 to one in 2025, it still has serious challenges, including $101,411 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Ohio facilities, indicating recurring compliance problems. Staffing is a weak point, with a 1/5 star rating and less RN coverage than 87% of state facilities, although the staff turnover rate is 43%, which is lower than the state average. Specific incidents include a critical failure to protect a resident from sexual abuse and concerns regarding inadequate food supplies and unsafe food temperatures, highlighting both alarming safety issues and the need for improvement.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #728/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $101,411 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
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 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
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Jan 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
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, policy review and review of a facility emergency management plan, the facility failed to ensure there was an adequate amount of food available in the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
4 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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff and legal guardian interviews, and pol...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interviews, and policy r...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interview, and policy review, the faci...
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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 resident interviews, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 manual...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
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
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure money from a resident fund account (RFA) was returned in a timely manner following the resident's discharge. This affe...
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 medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control procedures during medication administration. This affect...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
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 medical record review, review of a Self-Reported Incident (SRI), interviews with staff, residents, the law enforcement...
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
**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 create a comprehensive ca...
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, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hairnets and gloves while serving meals. This affected all residents except Resident #46 who wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2019
4 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were developed to address ...
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 observation, medical record review, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interve...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Medical record review for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 09/11/18. Medical diagnoses included heart failure, rena...
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
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure five bathroom floors were clean. This has the potential to affect five (#11, #19, #45, #37 and #14) out of 24 residents reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2018
10 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** Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to provide food to a resident on the behavi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed he was admitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure w...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed he was admitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure w...
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** 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed she was admitted initially on 03/21/17 with re-entry on 05/15/18. Diag...
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 and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and indiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to complete weekly pressure ulcer assessments. This aff...
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 resident record review, staff interview, and policy review; the facility failed to assess a physician ordered amylase l...
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 medical review, observations, staff interview and review of census the facility failed to provide adequate maintenance ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to maintain safe food temperatures. This had the potential to affected 64 residents. The facility identified Resident #60 as not consuming ...
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to safely store food items in the snack nourishment refrigerators on each unit. This had the potential to affecte...
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?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 43% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $101,411 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $101,411 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 Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below 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. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 23 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center?
MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 GARDEN HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 85 certified beds and approximately 57 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EATON, Ohio.
How Does Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER'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 (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center?
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?" "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Stick Around?
MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?
MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER has been fined $101,411 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.0x the Ohio average of $34,093. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER 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.