CIRCLE OF CARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Circle of Care in Salem, Ohio has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state ranking of #848 out of 913, they fall in the bottom half of Ohio facilities, and their county ranking of #11 out of 11 shows they are the lowest option available in Columbiana County. The facility's situation is worsening, with the number of issues increasing dramatically from 1 in 2024 to 19 in 2025. While staffing is relatively strong with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and turnover at an average 56%, the facility has alarming issues, including a critical failure to manage legionella bacteria in their water supply, posing significant health risks to residents. Additionally, they had a serious incident where a resident developed an avoidable pressure ulcer due to inadequate care. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, the critical health and safety concerns make this facility a risky choice for families.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #848/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $179,235 in fines. Higher than 56% of Ohio facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 53 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Ohio. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 42 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-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
Below Ohio average (3.2)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
8 points above Ohio average of 48%
The Ugly 42 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
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
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 review of the medical record, interview, review of the facility policy and review of the Nursing Home Residents' [NAME]...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
18 deficiencies
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, review of the facility water management plan and maintenance logs, review of legion...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide spend-down notices to Residents #9 and #10. This affected two residents (#9 and #10) of five reviewed for resident funds. The facil...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a new Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide evidence that Resident #145's baseline care plan was developed in a timely manner. This affected one re...
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
Based on review of medical records, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to initiate and implement person-centered comprehensive care plans that addressed their identified ne...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of fall investigations, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to re-evaluate care planned fall interventions for effectiveness and update the car...
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, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure smoking materials were stored in a safe and secure location. This affected two residents (#17 and #20) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appr...
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 medical record reviews, review of pharmacy consultation reports, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist recommendations for Resident #11 were reviewed and addressed by th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to limit as needed (PRN) psychotropic and antipsychotic medications to 14 days. This affected one resident (#3) of five reviewed for unnecessa...
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 Resident #34's record in a complete and accu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the physician conducted in-person examinations of all residents. This affected four residents (#3, #94, #145, and #14...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0714
(Tag F0714)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the physician did not delegate tasks to non-physician providers that were specified to be completed by the physician ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to renew their food service operation license in a timely manner. This affected all 35 residents who received food from the kitc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) and Quality Assurance (QA) sign-in sheets and meeting minutes, policy review and interview, the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of training certificates, personnel files, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff responsible for overseeing the infection prevention and control program (IPCP) completed s...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on medical record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all residents transferred out of the facility received information on the facility's bed hold po...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 11/23/24 and a discharge date of 12/21/24. Diagno...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
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
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure inventions were attempted prior...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31 received nutritional supplements as recommended. This affected one resident (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
11 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 prevent the devel...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of advance beneficiary notices, facility policy and procedure review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their responsible parties received the appropria...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #10, Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman was notified of transfer/discharges for Residen...
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
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed and implemented for Resident #24 related to falls/fall risk. 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #4's gastrostomy tube was checked for p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a surety bond, or otherwise provide assurance satisfa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of COVID-19 tracking information documents, facility policy and procedure review, review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Interim Final Rule Updating Requirements for Noti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Employment Screening
(Tag F0606)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of personnel files, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure all staff were checked against the Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to employment to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure food items were stored appropriately in refrigerators on the nursing units to prevent contaminati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete a Legionella risk assessment and ensure control measures were in place to decrease the risk of Legionella in the facility. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2019
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 complete a comprehensive assessment related to activity...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 revise the care plan for range of motion for Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide a restorative ambulation program in accordance with Resident #12's restorative plan. This affected one resident (Resident #12) of te...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide range of motion services in a timely manner for...
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 interview the facility failed to check placement of a gastrostomy tube prior to the administration of medication for Resident #22. This affected one resident (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to administer oxygen in accordance with physician orders for Resident #10. This affected one resident (Resident #10...
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 monitor laboratory tests in accordance with physician orders to ensure the adequate use of medications at the prescribed dose for Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately reflect residents' status on required Minimum Data Set (M...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a physician attended Quality Assurance committee meetings. This had the potential to affect all 42 residents.
Findings include:
Revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and effective Legionella prevention program including water testing per the facility's plan. This had the potentia...
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?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $179,235 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 42 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $179,235 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Circle Of Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CIRCLE OF CARE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Circle Of Care Staffed?
CMS rates CIRCLE OF CARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 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 Circle Of Care?
State health inspectors documented 42 deficiencies at CIRCLE OF CARE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 38 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Circle Of Care?
CIRCLE OF CARE 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 55 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SALEM, Ohio.
How Does Circle Of Care Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, CIRCLE OF CARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Circle Of Care?
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?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Circle Of Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CIRCLE OF CARE 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 1-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 Circle Of Care Stick Around?
Staff turnover at CIRCLE OF CARE is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 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 Circle Of Care Ever Fined?
CIRCLE OF CARE has been fined $179,235 across 1 penalty action. This is 5.1x the Ohio average of $34,871. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Circle Of Care on Any Federal Watch List?
CIRCLE OF CARE 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.