GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Greenfield Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating it is below average and has some concerns. It ranks #474 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 5 in Highland County, meaning only two local options are rated better. The facility is on an improving trend, reducing issues from 6 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. However, its staffing rating is a significant weakness at 1 out of 5 stars, with a 51% turnover rate, which is typical for Ohio but indicates instability. There are concerning fines of $15,269, higher than 78% of Ohio facilities, suggesting compliance issues that need attention. On the positive side, Greenfield has good RN coverage, exceeding 75% of facilities in Ohio, which is beneficial as RNs can identify problems that CNAs might miss. Recent inspections revealed critical incidents, including failing to provide proper CPR for a resident who was found unresponsive and issues with food safety practices, such as a staff member serving food while not fully following hygiene protocols. Overall, while there are some strengths, families should be aware of significant weaknesses that could affect care.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Ohio
- #474/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 51% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $15,269 in fines. Higher than 61% 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
- 24 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
Near Ohio average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, review of resident fund account documentation, review of self reported incident investigation, staff in...
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 F0627
(Tag F0627)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge plan was implemented. This affected o...
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 F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, review of resident fund account documentation, review of self reported incident, staff interviews, and ...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review, review of the facility investigation, resident interview, staff int...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
6 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 observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, manufacturer user manual review, review of the Long-T...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to to ensure resident Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents were accurate regarding a resident's current...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0646
(Tag F0646)
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 notify the state mental health authority with a signi...
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 observation, staff interview, review of a facility provided resident list, and review of a menu spreadsheet, the facility failed to ensure residents received food portions based on the menu s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, review of a meal spreadsheet, and policy review, the facility fail...
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 12/04/24 from 8:02 A.M. to 8:22 A.M. revealed Dietary Manager (DM) #34 was serving breakfast meal to all residents. DM #34 wore gloves and had a towel draped on his shoulder. DM #34 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · 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.
Base...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a new pre-admission screening and resident review (P...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 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
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
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 resident representatives were involved in medical decision ma...
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 F0573
(Tag F0573)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide a resident's medical record at the request o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SR...
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
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 review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy This aff...
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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of neglect or elop...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to pre...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2020
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 record review, resident and staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents and review of the facili...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents and review of the facili...
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** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify a resident in writing of the reason for a transfer and...
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** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify a resident in writing of the remaining bed hold days a...
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
Based on record review, resident and staff interviews and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide showers/baths on scheduled shower days to Resident #187. This affected one (#1...
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
Based on record review, staff interview and review of the drug label, the facility failed to ensure a proper diagnoses for the use of a psychotropic medication and failed to document behavior monitori...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $15,269 in fines. Above average for Ohio. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (46/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?
CMS rates GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 51%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION during 2020 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 Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation?
GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 MICHAEL SLYK, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GREENFIELD, Ohio.
How Does Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (51%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation?
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 Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 3-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 Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?
GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 51%, which is 5 percentage points above the Ohio average of 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 Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?
GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION has been fined $15,269 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,232. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Greenfield Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?
GREENFIELD SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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.