VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Violet Springs Health Campus has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns that families should consider. The facility ranks #568 out of 913 in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #6 out of 9 in Fairfield County, meaning only two local options are worse. While the facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, there are still significant concerns, including $16,801 in fines, which is higher than 78% of Ohio facilities, suggesting compliance problems. Staffing is rated average with a 50% turnover rate, and RN coverage is good, being better than 87% of facilities, ensuring that residents receive necessary medical attention. However, there have been critical incidents, including a resident being injured after falling down stairs due to inadequate supervision and delays in responding to a resident’s medical emergency that resulted in them requiring CPR. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and improved issues, families should weigh these against the concerning incidents and fines.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Ohio
- #568/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $16,801 in fines. Higher than 97% of Ohio facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 55 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Ohio. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 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 19 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
2 deficiencies
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
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 closed medical record review, hospital record review, review of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, staff i...
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, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions we...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to take vital signs in connection to an as needed blood ...
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 record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure care planned interventions for falls were implemented for Resident #20. This affected one (Resident #20) out of four res...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/22/23 with diagnoses including kidney transplant, ost...
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** 3. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/22/23 with diagnoses including kidney transplant, ost...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, medication administration observation, staff interviews, and medication administration policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of five perc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure multi use vials of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) were dated when they were opened. This...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on employee file review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs) received annual performance reviews. This had the potential to affect all resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nurse Aides (STNAs) completed the minimum required 12 hours of in-servicing a year. This affected one (STNA #139)...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 →
Aug 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to provide Resident ...
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, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure a potential incident of...
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, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice to R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #243's peripherally inserted central ca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure pre and post hemodialysis assessments were completed for Resident #14. This affected one resident (#14) of one resident reviewed for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 maintain a medication error rate of less than five perc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to prepare and serve pureed foods in a manner to ensure they were served at the proper temperature and to ensure palatability. Thi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
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 #5 was provided assistive devices at me...
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), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $16,801 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 Violet Springs Health Campus's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS 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 Violet Springs Health Campus Staffed?
CMS rates VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Violet Springs Health Campus?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 17 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 Violet Springs Health Campus?
VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS 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 TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 58 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PICKERINGTON, Ohio.
How Does Violet Springs Health Campus Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Violet Springs Health Campus?
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 Violet Springs Health Campus Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS 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 Violet Springs Health Campus Stick Around?
VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS has a staff turnover rate of 50%, 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 Violet Springs Health Campus Ever Fined?
VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS has been fined $16,801 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,247. 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 Violet Springs Health Campus on Any Federal Watch List?
VIOLET SPRINGS HEALTH CAMPUS 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.