OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY

10190 FAIRMOUNT RD, NEWBURY, OH 44065 (440) 338-8220
For profit - Corporation 92 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#139 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: February 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Ohman Family Living at Holly in Newbury, Ohio, has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and above average in quality. It ranks #139 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and #4 out of 8 in Geauga County, indicating that only three local options are better. The facility's performance is currently stable, with one issue reported in both 2023 and 2025. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 60%, which is higher than the state average of 49%. Although the home has no fines on record and offers better RN coverage than 91% of Ohio facilities, there have been some serious concerns, including an incident where a resident was injured during a lift transfer, leading to a concussion and requiring hospital treatment. Additionally, there were issues with food storage sanitation and medication administration errors that could potentially harm residents. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of the weaknesses in safety and staff management.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In Ohio
#139/913
Top 15%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Holding Steady
1 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% 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
✓ Good
Each resident gets 56 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Ohio. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 60%

14pts above Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 3 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, staff interview, policy review, and review of manufacturer's guidelines, the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, staff interview, policy review, and review of manufacturer's guidelines, the facility failed to ensure Resident #100 was transferred in a safe manner to prevent an injury during a mechanical (Hoyer) lift transfer. Actual Harm occurred on 01/31/25 at approximately 6:49 P.M. when Resident #100, who was dependent on staff for transfers, was injured during a Hoyer lift transfer when staff did not ensure Resident #100 cleared the air mattress's bolsters on the edge of the bed. As a result, the Hoyer lift tipped and struck Resident #100 on the top of the head. Resident #100 was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a concussion and laceration to the head which required six staples to close the lacerated wound. This affected one resident (#100) of three residents reviewed for safe transfers. The facility identified two additional residents who required the use of a Hoyer lift for transfers on the 500-hallway. The facility census was 90. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #100 revealed a re-admission date of 01/23/25 with medical diagnoses including Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia, generalized muscle weakness, and chronic systolic heart failure. Resident #100 discharged from the facility on 02/09/25. Review of Resident #100's care plan revised on 01/27/25 revealed the resident had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to Parkinson's weakness, limited mobility, and increased tremors. Listed interventions included transferring the resident using two staff participation using a Hoyer (mechanical) lift and a pressure relief mattress to bed to help reduce pressure on fragile skin. An additional care plan focus revealed Resident #100 was at risk for pressure ulcer development related to limited mobility and incontinence. A listed intervention included applying an air mattress to the resident's bed. Review of Resident #100's Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment revealed Resident #100 was dependent on staff for transfers and required the use of a manual wheelchair. Review of a progress note dated 01/31/25 at 6:49 P.M. revealed the nurse was notified by two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) that as they were lifting Resident #100 with the Hoyer lift into his bed, the Hoyer lift tipped over, and the top-heavy part struck Resident #100 in the middle of his head, near his hairline and forehead. A large hematoma and bleeding were noted around the area. The physician was notified and gave an order to send Resident #100 out to a local emergency room (ED) for evaluation. A subsequent note timed 7:12 P.M. revealed Resident #100's family was notified of the injury and transfer to the local ED. Review of a skin incident report dated 01/31/25 and timed 7:00 P.M. revealed Resident #100 obtained an injury during a Hoyer lift transfer. The report was prepared by Registered Nurse (RN) #224. RN #224 was notified by two (unnamed) CNAs that during a hoyer lift transfer, once Resident #100 was lowered into the bed, the Hoyer lift tipped over and struck Resident #100's head near his hairline. Resident #100 was bleeding and had a hematoma surrounding the area. Resident #100 was assessed to be at baseline mentation and alertness. The report listed Resident #100 as stating I got hit with the Hoyer lift as he was being transferred. Notifications were completed to the physician and Resident #100's family, and the resident was transferred to a local emergency department (ED) for treatment. Review of an ED After Visit Summary (AVS) dated 01/31/25 revealed Resident #100 was seen in the ED after sustaining a head injury to his scalp. The note listed the resident had received six staples in his head to close the laceration. Listed diagnoses for the ED visit were listed as a head injury and concussion. Resident #100 received a dose of Tylenol (an over-the-counter analgesic) and a tetanus vaccination. Resident #100 returned to the facility in the early morning hours of 02/01/25. Interview on 04/11/25 at 11:00 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that the resident had previously been treated for moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) during a prior admission, so upon his re-admission on [DATE], an air mattress was placed on the resident's bed as a preventative measure. The DON stated after being made aware of Resident #100's Hoyer lift injury, she believed the air mattress contributed to the incident. Interview on 04/11/25 at 4:22 P.M. with CNA #158 revealed her and Agency CNA #227 transferred Resident #100 on 01/31/25 when he sustained an injury from the Hoyer lift. CNA #158 reported the transfer went well until the lift got to the resident's bed. CNA #158 stated the mattress was too tall for the Hoyer lift to clear. The legs of the hoyer lift were open, CNA #158 stated she had control of the Hoyer lift, and Agency CNA #227 was guiding the resident. CNA #158 stated the legs of the Hoyer lift were open, Resident #100 was a taller and bigger man, and was unsure why or how the Hoyer lift tipped. CNA #158 stated she and Agency CNA #227 stopped the Hoyer lift from tipping completely. Interview on 04/11/25 at 4:35 P.M. with RN #224 revealed she was on duty the night Resident #100 was injured during a Hoyer lift transfer. RN #224 reported she did not witness the transfer but was called to the room by an unspecified aide after the transfer and an injury occurred. RN #224 immediately responded to the resident's room and noticed an abrasion to the resident's forehead. She assessed the resident and determined Resident #100 needed to be evaluated at a local ED as he routinely took blood thinners. Interview on 04/11/25 at 4:42 P.M. with Agency CNA #227 revealed she was caring for Resident #100 the night he sustained an injury during a Hoyer lift transfer. Agency CNA #227 and CNA #158 transferred Resident #100 from his wheelchair to his bed. On Resident #100's bed was an air mattress with bolsters (raised edges). Agency CNA #227 recalled the transfer went well until the Hoyer lifting Resident #100 did not clear the bolsters of the mattress. When turning and maneuvering the resident, the Hoyer lift tipped to the side, causing the top part of the Hoyer lift to hit Resident #100's head. Resident #100 started bleeding from where the Hoyer lift made contact with the resident's forehead. The two CNAs lowered Resident #100 into the bed and immediately summoned the nurse on duty. A follow up interview on 04/14/25 with the DON revealed the facility investigated the incident and had attempted to recreate the incident. The DON reported she did a root cause analysis of the incident and determined the root cause of Resident #100's injury was a combination of the resident's weight (last recorded as 262 pounds), the resident not clearing the air mattress bolsters, and movement/positioning of Resident #100 while transferring the resident into bed. Following the incident, Resident #100's mattress was changed from an air mattress with bolsters to a regular pressure-reducing mattress per his request and for improvement of safe transfers between surfaces. Review of the manufacturer's guidelines for the Hoyer lift, dated 2015, revealed the Hoyer lift's maximum capacity was 400 pounds (lbs). The guidelines contained a warning that lifters can tip over, and to keep base widened for stability. Review of the policy Mechanical Lift: Hoyer Lift dated 11/20/24 revealed a mechanical lift is used to facilitate transfers of residents who are unable to bear weight. At least two (2) people are involved during transferring a resident with the lift. The procedure included ensuring the resident is safe and secure. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00162876.
Jan 2019 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

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 medications were administered according to the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to the physician orders and manufacturer directions. This affected two residents (Residents #48 and #54) of nine residents observed receiving medications with two errors in 35 opportunities resulting in a medication error rate of 5.7%. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #54's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of Resident #54's physician orders revealed an order dated 05/26/18 for nursing staff to check the resident's blood sugar four times a day before meals and at bedtime. Insulin was to be given according to the sliding scale: inject two units if the resident's blood sugar was 150 to 200; four units if the resident's blood sugar was 201 to 250; six units if the resident's blood sugar was 251 to 300; eight units if the resident's blood sugar was 301 to 350; ten units if the residents blood sugar was 351 to 400; twelve units if the resident's blood sugar was 401 to 450; fifteen units if the resident's blood sugar was 451 to 500; and if greater than 501 give 20 units and notify the physician. Observation on 01/03/18 at 7:36 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 of Resident #54's medication administration revealed the nurse administered four units of insulin with a Humalog Kwikpen for a blood sugar of 213. LPN #801 did not ensure the pen was primed with two units of insulin prior to dialing up the four units of insulin and administering the insulin to the resident. Interview on 01/03/18 at 8:09 A.M. with LPN #801 confirmed she was unaware the insulin Kwikpens required priming of two units prior to dialing up the correct insulin dosage and administering the insulin to Resident #54. Review of the undated Kwikpen manufacturer directions revealed the pen was to be primed by turning the knob to select two units. The pen was to be held with the needle pointing up and the cartridge holder was to be tapped gently to collect air bubbles at the top. With the pen held with the needle pointing up they are to push the dose knob in until it stops and a zero is seen in the dose window. Insulin should then be seen at the tip of the needle. This removes air from the needle and ensures the correct dose of insulin can then be administered. 2. Review of Resident #48's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including altered mental status, type two diabetes mellitus and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #48's physician orders revealed an order dated 12/28/18 for Humalog 75/25 insulin and for nursing staff to administer 13 units three times a day before meals. Observation on 01/03/18 at 8:08 A.M. with LPN #801 of Resident #48's medication administration revealed the nurse administered 13 units of Humalog 75/25 insulin with an insulin Kwikpen. LPN #801 did not ensure the pen was primed with two units of insulin prior to dialing up 13 units of the insulin and administering the insulin to the resident. Interview on 01/03/18 at 8:09 A.M. with LPN #801 confirmed she was unaware the insulin Kwikpens required priming of two units prior to dialing up the correct insulin dosage and administering the insulin to Resident #48. Review of the undated Kwikpen manufacturer directions revealed the pen was to be primed by turning the knob to select two units. The pen was to be held with the needle pointing up and the cartridge holder was to be tapped gently to collect air bubbles at the top. With the pen held with the needle pointing up they are to push the dose knob in until it stops and a zero is seen in the dose window. Insulin should then be seen at the tip of the needle. This removes air from the needle and ensures the correct dose of insulin can then be administered. This affected two residents (Residents #48 and #54) of nine residents observed receiving medications with two errors in 35 opportunities resulting in a medication error rate of 5.7%.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions for food storage and food service. This had the potential to affect all residents except one, Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions for food storage and food service. This had the potential to affect all residents except one, Residents #43, who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 76. Findings include: During the tour of the kitchen on 01/02/19 at 9:14 A.M. a rolling metal rack was observed a yellow bin with a long clear lid. It contained an opened, bulk bag of flour with a large silver scoop observed sitting directly in the flour. Next to this rolling rack was the stand mixer. The mixer was observed with dried tan food particles on the upper surface where the mixer utensils are inserted and also scattered on the back of the stand. There were dried food particles and crumbs stuck between the back of the stand and the adjustable arm portion that holds the mixing bowl. Interview on 01/02/19 at 9:29 A.M. with Dietetic Technician (DT) #15 verified the scoop in the open bulk bag of flour and the dried food particles and crumbs on the stand mixer. Observation on 01/02/19 at 12:24 P.M. with DT #15 of the ice machine located just outside of the kitchen, revealed this ice machine was used for the residents. There were scattered black spots observed on the inside of the ice machine, on the outside of the off-white plastic ice shoot where the ice is dispensed from. There was also a small reddish stain. DT #15 stated the black spots were mold and that she will dump the ice and clean the ice machine. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage, dated 2010 revealed scoops for bulk foods are not to be stored in the food but are to be kept covered in a protected area near the containers.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Ohio.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Concerns
  • • 3 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Ohman Family Living At Holly's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Ohman Family Living At Holly Staffed?

CMS rates OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ohman Family Living At Holly?

State health inspectors documented 3 deficiencies at OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 2 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Ohman Family Living At Holly?

OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 92 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NEWBURY, Ohio.

How Does Ohman Family Living At Holly Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (60%) 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 Ohman Family Living At Holly?

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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Ohman Family Living At Holly Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY 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 5-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 Ohman Family Living At Holly Stick Around?

Staff turnover at OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. 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 Ohman Family Living At Holly Ever Fined?

OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY 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 Ohman Family Living At Holly on Any Federal Watch List?

OHMAN FAMILY LIVING AT HOLLY 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.