WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC

1454 EAST MAPLE STREET, NORTH CANTON, OH 44720 (330) 499-8300
For profit - Corporation 20 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
58/100
#382 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: June 2022

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

Overview

Windsor Medical Center Inc has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #382 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the top half, and #14 out of 33 in Stark County, indicating that there are only a few local options that perform better. The facility is showing improvement, having reduced its issues from 4 in 2022 to just 1 in 2023. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and turnover at 49%, which is on par with the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents. However, the facility has incurred $97,532 in fines, which is concerning and higher than 99% of Ohio facilities, indicating potential compliance problems. While the nursing home boasts more RN coverage than 94% of Ohio facilities, a critical incident was reported where staff failed to timely report allegations of physical and verbal abuse against residents, putting them at risk for harm. Additionally, there were concerns about inadequate nail care for residents who needed assistance, highlighting some weaknesses in daily personal care. Overall, families should weigh these strengths against the noted issues when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C
58/100
In Ohio
#382/913
Top 41%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$97,532 in fines. Higher than 95% of Ohio facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 104 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Ohio nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 4 issues
2023: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 49%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $97,532

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Mar 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on record review, review of facility self-reported incidents, review of the facility policy and procedure related to Abuse and staff interview the facility failed to ensure allegations of staff ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, review of facility self-reported incidents, review of the facility policy and procedure related to Abuse and staff interview the facility failed to ensure allegations of staff to resident physical and verbal abuse that occurred on 02/22/23 were reported timely to ensure all facility residents were protected. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy on 02/22/23 at approximately 1:30 A.M. when State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #374 witnessed STNA #370 potentially physically and verbally abuse Resident #26, a resident who resided in a facility licensed only bed but failed to immediately report the incident. On 02/22/23 at approximately 4:45 A.M. STNA #374 witnessed STNA #370 potentially verbally abuse a second resident, Resident #36, who also resided in a facility licensed only bed but failed to immediately report the incident. The lack of timely reporting placed all facility residents at risk for physical, verbal, emotional, psychosocial harm as STNA #370 continued to work additional shifts before the incidents were ultimately reported and the STNA was suspended on 02/24/23. This had the potential to affect all 18 residents (#2, #4, #5, #6, #9, #10, #11, #12, #15, #16, #17, ##19, #20, #30, #31, #33, #34 and #40) who resided in facility certified beds and for whom STNA #370 could have potential contact with as the building the facility was located in had certified and licensed only beds assigned to the same staff. The facility certified bed census was 18. On 03/01/23 at 5:25 P.M. the Administrator and Human Resources #429 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 02/22/23 at approximately 1:30 A.M. when STNA #374 witnessed an incident of potential staff to resident physical and verbal abuse and failed to immediately report the abuse to a supervisor. The Immediate Jeopardy continued 02/22/23 at approximately 4:45 A.M. when STNA #374 witnessed another potential incident of staff to resident verbal abuse and failed to immediately report the abuse to a supervisor resulting in the perpetrator, STNA #370 remaining on the schedule and working for additional shifts placing all residents at risk for situations of abuse by the STNA. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/03/23 when the facility implemented the following corrective action: • On 02/24/23 and 10:41 P.M., the facility suspended STNA #370 upon report of the allegations of staff to resident verbal and physical abuse involving Resident #26 and Resident #36, residents who resided in licensed only beds in the same facility. • Beginning on 02/24/23 and 10:41 P.M. and ending on 02/25/23 at 11:45 A.M. the Administrator began an investigation of the allegations of verbal and physical abuse when STNA #374 reported the abuse to Registered Nurse (RN) #395. RN #395, LPN #349, and the Director of Nursing (DON) took STNA #370 off the schedule and did skin sweeps to see to see if non-interviewable residents (#20 and #33) had any signs of abuse and interviewed (#2, #5, #6, #9, #11, #12, #15, #17, #30, #34, #40, and #42) who had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of eight or higher for any concerns related to abuse. No new evidence of abuse was identified. • On 02/26/23 between 8:00 A.M. and 8:30 A.M. the DON notified facility Medical Director #430 of the staff to resident physical and verbal abuse • On 03/01/23 and 5:39 P.M., the facility terminated STNA #370 upon determining there was potential that the allegations of verbal and physical abuse occurred to safeguard the residents affected as well as the other residents in the facility. • On 03/01/23 and 5:45 P.M., the facility terminated STNA #374 and LPN #319 for failing to timely report the alleged staff to resident verbal and physical abuse to protect all residents in the facility. • On 03/03/23 the Administrator began staff training for all staff related to Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation with additional information to highlight for all staff the reporting requirements which also addressed the failures to report that occurred and the repercussions thereof. A plan for any staff unable to attend the in-service revealed they would have to complete an online in-service prior to working their next shift. As of 03/06/23 four administrative staff, the DON, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), five activities staff, four maintenance staff, four medical secretary/reception staff, Human Resources, 61 nursing staff, seven housekeeping staff, 30 dietary staff, and the beautician had completed the in-service. • Beginning on 03/03/23 a plan for all new hires to receive education during orientation by Medical Secretary #301 and Human Resources Director #429, on Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation and annually thereafter during the facility wide Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation in-service. • On 03/03/23 a plan for the Administrator, DON, and Director of Human Resources #429, or their designees to audit staff knowledge utilizing quizzes administered quarterly for one year then resume annual in-service training with quizzes and also quizzes during the annual competency training held in November was implemented. • On 03/03/23 a plan for Human Resources #429 or designee to audit four staff members weekly times four weeks via a quiz regarding when to report allegations of abuse and who to report the allegations of abuse to. Human Resources continue random quizzes quarterly this year, and then the quizzes will be completed after annual abuse and competency training. • The facility identified all grievances and concerns would be forwarded to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee for further review and recommendations. There was no change to the grievance systems or the QAPI review process during the review of these incidents of abuse. All staff were responsible to identify and report abuse in a timely manner. A concern would be put on a concern form. The residents get information on filing grievances upon admission and are invited to resident council. Family members are educated on how to file a grievance upon admission, and they are also invited to come to the resident council. These systems are being maintained and are in place. • Interviews completed on 03/06/23 from 8:10 A.M. to 8:27 A.M. with Receptionist #31, RNs #373 and #394, STNAs #336, #345, and #378, Hospitality Aides #357 and #417, Housekeeping #313, and Environmental Services #418 revealed staff had been recently educated in person on 03/03/23 or had taken an online course prior to starting shift on abuse. All staff interviewed knew what abuse was, what to do when abuse occurs, and to report abuse immediately. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/03/23, the deficiency remained at Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility was in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and were monitoring to ensure continued compliance. Findings include: Review of the facility SRI, tracking number 232428 dated Saturday 02/25/23 and timed 9:03 A.M. revealed it was discovered on 02/24/23 STNA #374 had witnessed STNA #370 slap Resident #26 on Wednesday morning (02/22/23). The facility initiated an investigation of the incident at that time. Resident #26 was noted to reside in a facility bed that was licensed only. Review of the facility SRI, tracking number 232429 dated Saturday 02/25/23 and timed 9:15 A.M. revealed it was discovered on 02/24/23 STNA #374 had witnessed STNA #370 make disparaging comments about Resident #36 on Wednesday morning (02/22/23). The facility initiated an investigation of the incident at that time. Resident #36 was noted to reside in a facility bed that was licensed only. Review of schedule dated 02/21/23 to 02/23/23 revealed STNAs #370 and #374 were the two direct care staff scheduled from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. to provide care to all 41 residents in the nursing facility, which included 18 residents who resided in certified nursing home beds. Interview with the Administrator on 03/01/23 at 11:11 A.M. confirmed STNA #374 did not report the observations of abuse timely, and STNA #370 remained on the schedule and provided care to nursing facility residents until she punched out in the morning on Friday 02/24/23. When the Administrator was notified of the alleged abuse on 02/24/23 at 10:41 P.M., STNA #370 was taken off the schedule until an investigation could be completed. The Administrator revealed facility staff were last in serviced on the facility abuse policy in June of 2022 and STNA #374 attended that in service. During the abuse in service, staff were educated that any observation of abuse should be reported immediately. The Administrator confirmed the notification from STNA #374 was not timely, and if the abuse had been reported timely by STNA #374, STNA #370 would have been taken off the schedule and not have worked two full shifts after the observation. Observation on 03/01/23 at 12:15 P.M. revealed the facility certified beds and licensure beds were intermingled throughout the facility and not divided into distinct parts. Interviews on 03/01/23 at 11:42 A.M. and 1:34 P.M. with STNA #374 revealed when there were two STNAs scheduled from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. and they found it easier to tag team (care of residents), so both STNAs provided care to all facility residents, those 18 residents who resided in beds that were certified and the additional residents who resided in licensed only beds. The STNA revealed on 02/22/22 at approximately 1:30 A.M. STNA #374 witnessed STNA #370 say disparaging words and hit Resident #26. On 02/22/23 at approximately 4:45 A.M. STNA #374 witnessed STNA #370 say disparaging words to Resident #36 during care. STNA #374 stated she didn ' t say anything to anyone regarding what she witnessed that day because she had to take STNA #370 home from work, and she was afraid of what would happen to her. On the night of 02/22/23, STNA #374 stated she tried to tell LPN #319, who stated, Oh you know how [STNA #370] is. STNA #374 felt LPN #319 was not taking it seriously. On Thursday 02/23/23 STNA #374 stated she did not work. On Friday 02/24/23 STNA #374 reported the incident to RN #395 at the beginning of her shift when she got to work. STNA #374 confirmed the notification of the observed abuse was not immediate and any observation of abuse should be reported immediately. Review of the punch detail report for STNA #370 revealed STNA #370 punched in at 9:54 P.M. on Tuesday 02/21/23 and punched out at 6:04 A.M. on Wednesday 02/22/23, punched in at 9:54 P.M. on Wednesday 02/22/23 and punched out on Thursday 02/23/23 at 6:09 A.M., punched in at 9:53 P.M. on Thursday 02/23/23 at 9:53 P.M. and punched out on Friday 02/24/23 at 6:03 A.M. STNA #370 did not work since after she punched out on Friday 02/24/23 at 6:03 A.M. Review of facility policy titled Abuse/Neglect/Mistreatment/Misappropriation, revised 02/22/23, revealed all alleged incidents or suspicions involving abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of property would be immediately reported to the employee ' s immediate supervisor, Director of Nursing (DON) and/or the Administrator. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Self-Reported Incident, Control Number OH00140682 and Control Number OH00140677.
Jun 2022 4 deficiencies
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, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 #5 and Resident #8, who required staff assistance with activity of daily living (ADL) care were provided timely and adequate nail care to maintain proper hygiene. This affected two residents (#5 and #8) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including fracture of the left femur, compression fracture of the lumbar vertebra, compression fracture of the thoracic vertebra, head injury, myocardial infarction, mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/13/22 revealed Resident #5 had moderately impaired cognition. The assessment revealed the resident required limited assistance from one staff for personal hygiene. On 06/21/22 at 10:32 A.M., 06/22/22 at 7:44 A.M. and 06/23/22 at 8:50 A.M. Resident #5 was observed to have long dirty fingernails. On 06/22/22 at 1:20 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed nail care was to be completed by the staff with showers. On 06/23/22 at 8:50 A.M. interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #803 verified the fingernails of Resident #5 were long and dirty Review of the facility policy titled Policy on Care of Resident fingernails/Toenails, dated 02/10/21 revealed State Tested Nursing Assistants, Certified Nursing Assistants, and appropriately credentialed activity staff should provide care to the fingernails of residents to ensure they were maintained to clinical standards. Residents who were unable to care for their own fingernails would require assistance in keeping nails clean and trimmed. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic right heart failure, chronic respiratory failure, chronic pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, glaucoma and cerebral infarction. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 04/29/22 revealed Resident #8 had moderately impaired cognition. The assessment revealed the resident required extensive assistance from one staff for personal hygiene. On 06/21/22 at 10:21 A.M. and 06/23/22 at 8:40 A.M. Resident #8 was observed to have long dirty fingernails. On 06/22/22 at 1:20 P.M. interview with the DON revealed nail care was to be completed by staff with showers. On 06/23/22 at 8:40 A.M. interview with Resident #8 revealed his nails were long and needed trimmed but nobody had cut them for him. Review of the facility policy titled Policy on Care of Resident fingernails/Toenails, dated 02/10/21 revealed State Tested Nursing Assistants, Certified Nursing Assistants, and appropriately credentialed activity staff should provide care to the fingernails of residents to ensure they were maintained to clinical standards. Residents who were unable to care for their own fingernails would require assistance in keeping nails clean and trimmed.
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 record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure a pressure ulcer for Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure a pressure ulcer for Resident #5 was properly assessed on admission, failed to ensure treatments were completed as ordered (between 04/07/22 to 05/09/22) and failed to ensure the ulcer was properly staged following debridement. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Finding include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including fracture of the left femur, compression fracture of the lumbar vertebra, compression fracture of the thoracic vertebra, head injury, myocardial infarction, mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Review of the admission orders, dated 04/07/22 revealed Resident #5 had an order for clean the mid spine with normal saline, pat dry and cover with a foam dressing everyday. The order was discontinued on 04/08/22. Review of the admission Braden (skin risk) scale, dated 04/07/22 revealed Resident #5 was at moderate risk for developing pressure injuries. Review of the admission assessment, dated 04/07/22 revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the actual depth of the ulcer was obscured by slough (nonliving tissue) and or eschar (necrotic tissue) in the wound bed) pressure injury to her mid spine. However, there were no measurements of the area. Review of the skin assessment, dated 04/11/22 revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure ulcer she had been admitted with which measured 4.5 centimeters (cm) in length by 2.5 cm in width by 0.0 in depth. The wound had 100 percent slough with a scant amount of serous drainage. The treatment was to cleanse the wound with wound cleanser and apply a bordered foam dressing daily. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/13/22 revealed Resident #5 had moderately impaired cognition. The assessment revealed the resident required limited assistance from one staff for personal hygiene and had an unstageable pressure injury she was admitted with. Review of the skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure ulcer which measured 4.5 cm in length by 2.5 cm in width by 0.0 in depth. The wound had 100 percent slough The treatment was to cleanse the wound with wound cleanser and apply a bordered foam dressing daily. Review of the skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure which measured 4.5 cm in length by 2.5 cm in width by 0.1 in depth. The wound had 100 slough with a scant amount of serosanguinous drainage. The treatment was to cleanse the wound with wound cleanser and apply a bordered foam dressing daily. Review of the April 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed there was no documentation a treatment had been completed to the mid-spine of Resident #5 from 04/07/22 to 04/30/22. Review of the skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure which measured 2.0 cm in length by 1.0 cm in width by 0.2 in depth. The wound had 100 slough with a scant amount of serosanguinous drainage. The treatment was changed to cleanse with wound cleaner and apply Dermafilm daily and as needed. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order, dated 05/03/22 to cleanse the mid-spine wound with wound cleanser, apply Dermafilm everyday and as needed. Review of the May 2022 TAR revealed no documentation a treatment had been completed to the mid-spine of Resident #5 from 05/01/22 to 05/09/22. Review of the skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure which measured 2.0 cm in length by 1.0 cm in width by 0.2 in depth. The wound had 100 slough with a scant amount of consanguineous drainage. The assessment revealed the treatment was changed to cleanse with wound cleaner and apply Dermafilm daily and as needed. There was no evidence of any skin assessment for Resident #5 from 05/10/22 through 05/24/22. Review of the skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure which measured 2.7 cm in length by 2.0 cm in width by 0.2 in depth. The wound had 100 slough with a scant amount of serosanguinous drainage. The note indicated the treatment was changed to cleanse with wound cleaner and apply Dermafilm daily and as needed. An appointment was made with the wound clinic. The note also indicated the wound had gotten worse. Review of the wound clinic notes dated 05/26/22 revealed Resident #5 had a wound to her back. The wound was covered with soft yellow eschar (necrotic tissue) with no odor and the peri-wound was clean. The wound measured 1.5 cm in length by 1.6 cm in width by 0.8 cm depth. There was a large amount of serosanguinous drainage noted. There was no granulation in the wound bed. There was a large amount of necrotic tissue within the wound bed including slough. The wound was debrided and post wound measurements were 1.6 cm in length by 1.0 cm in width by 0.6 cm depth. The wound was now assessed to be a Stage III (full thickness skin loss which may extend into the subcutaneous tissue). Review of the physician's orders revealed Resident #5 had an order (dated 05/26/22) for a waffle mattress to the and bed and a waffle cushion to the wheelchair every shift for offloading. Review of the physician's orders revealed Resident #5 had an order, dated 05/27/22 to cleanse the thoracic spine with wound cleanser, apply Mesalt to the wound bed, cover with an abdominal pad and secure with medifix tape. Review of the skin assessment, dated 05/31/22 revealed Resident #5 had an unstageable pressure which measured 1.8 cm in length by 1.5 cm in width by 0.5 in depth. The wound was derided on 05/26/22 and the slough was no longer present. On 06/22/22 at 2:19 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed no assessments/measurements were completed on admission due to the facility wound nurse not assessing the area until the following week. The DON revealed she did not feel the nurses on the floor were qualified to stage/measure wounds. On 06/23/22 at 1:51 P.M. during a follow up interview, the DON revealed the facility policy indicated it was in the nurses scope of practice to measure a wound. She verified there were no measurements from admission to determine how large the spine wound for Resident #5 was on admission, there was no documentation of a treatment being done from 04/07/22 to 05/09/22, and no documentation of a skin assessment from 05/10/22 to 05/24/22. The DON also revealed there were no measurements of the area from the hospital when the resident had been admitted . On 06/23/22 at 2:39 P.M. interview with the DON verified the wound clinic documentation, dated 05/26/22 identified the area as a Stage III following the debridement of the wound on this date. However, the facility failed to include that information in their assessments or any subsequent assessments completed between 05/26/22 to present date. The DON revealed she had just been reviewing the measurements on the assessments and not the staging component. Review of the facility policy titled Wound Documentation, dated 03/31/22 revealed accurate documentation was an essential part of determining appropriate treatment and management of skin. It was within the scope of practice for registered nurses and licensed practical nurse to document wound measurements as applicable. The area wound be identified as pressure, surgical or other skin condition at the time of the initial findings with staging to be done as appropriate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

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 oxygen equipment for Resident #8 and #15 was dat...

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 oxygen equipment for Resident #8 and #15 was dated as to when changed last and failed to properly store an oxygen nasal cannula when not in use in a clean and sanitary manner for Resident #15. This affected two residents (#8 and #15) of five residents observed with oxygen. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic right heart failure, chronic respiratory failure, chronic pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, glaucoma and cerebral infarction. Review of the June 2022 physician's orders, revealed Resident #8 had and order, dated 04/10/22 to change his oxygen tubing on the tenth of every month on night shift. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/29/22 revealed Resident #8 had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance from one staff for personal hygiene and had oxygen. On 06/21/22 at 10:21 A.M. observation of Resident #8's oxygen tubing and nasal cannula revealed they were undated as to when they had last been changed. On 06/21/22 at 10:22 A.M. interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #804 revealed oxygen tubing and nasal cannulas were to be dated when they were changed. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, paralysis of the larynx and vocal cords, gastrostomy, anoxia brain damage, benign prostatic hyperplasia, ataxia and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 06/06/22 revealed Resident #15 had moderately impaired cognation and was not on oxygen therapy. On 06/21/22 at 10:25 A.M. observation revealed Resident #15 had oxygen tubing laying directly on the top of an oxygen concentrator in the resident's room. The tubing was not in any type of protective barrier/bag (storage). In addition, there was also no date as to when it had been changed last. On 06/21/22 at 10:25 A.M. interview with LPN #804 revealed the oxygen tubing for Resident #15 should have been stored in a protective barrier and dated as to when it was last changed.
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 staff interview the facility failed to ensure an ice scoop was properly stored in a clean and sanitary manner to prevent contamination. This had the potential to affect 16 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure an ice scoop was properly stored in a clean and sanitary manner to prevent contamination. This had the potential to affect 16 of 16 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 06/22/2 at 7:19 A.M. Stated Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #800 was observed to retrieve an ice scoop from inside the ice machine. The ice scoop was observed directly on top of the ice. The STNA proceeded to fill a glass up with ice for a resident and then placed the ice scoop back into the ice machine directly on top of the ice without any type of protective barrier. On 06/22/22 at 7:19 A.M. interview with STNA #800 verified she had retrieved the ice scoop directly from inside the ice machine and after using it, she placed the scoop back in the machine. The STNA revealed she did not know what to do with the ice scoop because there was no where else to put it. Following the interview, the STNA obtained a paper towel, put the paper towel on the counter and placed the ice scoop on the paper towel. Review of the undated facility policy titled Cleaning Instructions: Ice Machine and Equipment, revealed the ice scoop was to be stored beside or on top of the machine in a clean non porous container that allowed the water to drain off and not pool around the scoop.
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

  • "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

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $97,532 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 5 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $97,532 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade C (58/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 58/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Windsor Medical Center Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Windsor Medical Center Inc Staffed?

CMS rates WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Windsor Medical Center Inc?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC during 2022 to 2023. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 4 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 Windsor Medical Center Inc?

WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC 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 20 certified beds and approximately 13 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NORTH CANTON, Ohio.

How Does Windsor Medical Center Inc Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Windsor Medical Center Inc?

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 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 Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Windsor Medical Center Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Windsor Medical Center Inc Stick Around?

WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Windsor Medical Center Inc Ever Fined?

WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC has been fined $97,532 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Ohio average of $34,054. 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 Windsor Medical Center Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER INC 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.