PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Parkvue Health Care Center in Sandusky, Ohio, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families considering nursing homes. It ranks #318 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the top half, but it falls to #6 out of 8 in Erie County, meaning only one local facility is better. The trend is concerning as the number of issues has worsened from 1 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, but with a turnover rate of 52%, it is average compared to the state average. While the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign, there are some areas of concern, including unlabeled food items in the kitchen and heavily stained carpets throughout the facility, which could impact residents' comfort and safety.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Ohio
- #318/913
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% 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 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Ohio. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0920
(Tag F0920)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on dining observations, staff interview, and review of the facility census, the facility failed to ensure there was adequate space in the dining room for 17 residents (#8, #18, #24, #31, #37, #3...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation on 10/28/24 at 9:11 A.M. of the satellite kitchen located on the [NAME] unit revealed:
•
A six-quart contai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure carpets were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner throughout the facility. This affected all residents. The...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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, staff, family and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to safely t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 ensure all resident meal intakes were documented. Thi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents code status was consistently doc...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor a residents dialysis catheter ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 review of facility policy, the facility failed to offer pneumococcal vaccin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on the unprecedented global pandemic that resulted in the Presidential declaration of a State of Nation Emergency dated 03/13/20, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, review of Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and review of faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of personnel files and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) received training and competencies when caring for residents with dementia. Thi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure kitchen areas were maint...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms and bathrooms were maintained in good repair. This had the potential to affect 15 (#20, #53, #60, #43, #33, #38, ...
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 personnel files review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) received 12 hours of annual training. This affected one (#759) out of five STNA pe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2019
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident fund account review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to return f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive pl...
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 medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 review of a facility policy, the facility failed to evaluate a resident and...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, review of medication information from Medscape and re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, review of facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was positive with Influenza B wore personal protect...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Parkvue Health's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER 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 Parkvue Health Staffed?
CMS rates PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Parkvue Health?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER during 2019 to 2024. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Parkvue Health?
PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by UNITED CHURCH HOMES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 84 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SANDUSKY, Ohio.
How Does Parkvue Health Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Parkvue Health?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Parkvue Health Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER 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 4-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 Parkvue Health Stick Around?
PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Ohio average of 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 Parkvue Health Ever Fined?
PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER 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 Parkvue Health on Any Federal Watch List?
PARKVUE HEALTH CARE CENTER 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.