EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Edgewood Manor of Lucasville II has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. In Ohio, it ranks #666 out of 913, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and it is last in Scioto County, ranked #11 out of 11. The facility's performance is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a major weakness, rated only 1 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 64%, which is above the state average. While there are no fines, which is a positive aspect, there are serious incidents reported, such as a resident not receiving necessary treatment for a skin injury, significant weight loss due to inadequate meal assistance, and delays in dental care leading to infections. Overall, families should weigh these serious concerns against the facility's lack of fines and prioritize their loved ones' safety and well-being.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #666/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Ohio average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
18pts above Ohio avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
16 points above Ohio average of 48%
The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
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 gradual dose reduction (GDR) or documentation of a...
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who had abnormal heart rate received timely care and services. This affected one (Resident #37) of two resi...
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 observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure privacy curtains were in place around commodes in the communal bathroom for residents to utilize f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of staff to resident physical a...
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 medical record review, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from further possible abuse...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to have accurate advance directives in the electronic and medical record. This affected one (Resident #14) of one resident reviewed for a...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to notify one resident's (#218) physician of a change in condition. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
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 ensure one resident (#55) was free from physical restr...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on record review, review of facilities Self Reported Incident (SRI), review of facility policy titled Abuse, Investigation and Reporting and interviews the facility failed to appropriately ident...
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, review of facilities Self Reported Incident (SRI), review of facility policy titled Abuse, Investigation and Reporting and interviews, the facility failed to appropriately repo...
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
2. Record review of Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 08/21/20 with pertinent diagnoses of: dementia, diabetes mellitus type II, muscle weakness, acute kidney failure, hypokalemia, anxiety, d...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure
Resident #15, #17, and #55 who required assist...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#65) who received antihypertensive medications with parameters for blood pressure (BP) was obtained prior to administr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to provide a safe, comfortable environment for Resident #18 when his wall was cracked and the heater was rusted and for Resident #42 when h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2021
16 deficiencies
3 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure treatment ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
A resident was harmed · 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 nutritional interventions, including timely and...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
A resident was harmed · 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 ensure timely dental services were provided for Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
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. Record review revealed Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmo...
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 record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #9's family/responsibl...
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** 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #31 revealed an admission date of 07/31/20 with diagnoses including schizophrenia, ...
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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #3, #15 and #52, who required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) received timely and adequ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide intervention/adaptive equipment as ordered for Resident #15 and Resident #52 who were assessed to have limitation in ra...
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, record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to fall/safety interventions were in place as ordered for Resident #9. This affected one resident (#...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #32's enteral feeding was labeled with the solution, date and time the enteral feeding was initiated/star...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed by the physician in a timely manner. This affected two residents (#9 and #32) of five r...
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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to monitor residents for side effects of medication, preve...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 08/30/21 at 1:06 P.M. observation of the lunch meal revealed multiple gnats were observed to have landed on Resident #65's...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the correct diet that met resident needs was provided when whole broccoli florets were given to residents on a dysphagia...
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure resident refrigerators were maintained at appropriate temperatures and were clean and free from expired food items. This...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure resident m...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 30 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II 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 Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii Staffed?
CMS rates EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 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 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii?
State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II during 2021 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 27 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii?
EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II 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 AOM HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 71 certified beds and approximately 68 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LUCASVILLE, Ohio.
How Does Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II 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 Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii Stick Around?
Staff turnover at EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. 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 Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii Ever Fined?
EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II 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 Edgewood Manor Of Lucasville Ii on Any Federal Watch List?
EDGEWOOD MANOR OF LUCASVILLE II 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.