ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Astoria Place of Waterville has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about resident safety and care. Ranked #603 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, they are in the bottom half, and #19 out of 33 in Lucas County, meaning there are better options nearby. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 41% turnover rate, which is below the state average, but the overall staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars. However, the facility has $26,685 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues. There have been serious incidents reported, including a resident choking on incorrectly served food, which led to a life-threatening situation and death. Another alarming case involved a resident being strangled by another resident, categorized as a homicide. Additionally, staff failed to assist a resident safely, resulting in a fall that went unreported and caused further injury. Overall, while there are some positive aspects in staffing, the significant safety concerns may make this facility a risky choice for families seeking care for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #603/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 41% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $26,685 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 41 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
-
Staff turnover below average (41%)
7 points below Ohio average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Ohio average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record
Sept 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility investigation, review of emergency medical service (EMS)...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2025
5 deficiencies
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
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, county coroner interview, review of the Emergency Medical Services...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility fa...
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 observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to adequately assess a resident following ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility maintained a homelike environment. This affected eight (#35, #82, #22, #36, #12, #81, #7, and #29) of eight residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of a job description, and policy review, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS), the facility failed to ensure appropriate cleaning agents were used to clean residents rooms and common areas. This affe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff schedule review, timesheet review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked for eight hours daily in the facility. This affected all 68 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 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 review of the medical record, review of a self-reported incident, review of an incident report, review of hospital reco...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility policy, review of the Self-Reported Incidents (SRI) database, facility investigat...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) database, review of policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to timely report allegations of resident-to-resident abuse. This affected three...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
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, community staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sa...
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 medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely identify and trea...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care and treatment was pr...
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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nutritional statu...
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 policy, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications and failed to ensure the medication refrigerator in the medication room was use...
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
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure drinking cups were adequately cleaned. This affected 28 (#2, #3, #4, #6, #13, #15, #20, #24, #25, #29, #30, #34,...
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 observations, staff interview, training record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering a COVID positive env...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
2 deficiencies
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, self-reported incident review, investigation review, and review of...
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, self-reported incident review, investigation review, and review of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident mail was delivered unopened to residents. This affected o...
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
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide the resident and resident's representative in writing the reason for a transfer to the hospital. This affected one res...
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
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide the resident and resident's representative with the facility's bed hold policy for a transfer to the h...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RA...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to change oxygen supplies as...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0710
(Tag F0710)
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 interview, and policy review the facility failed to obtain a physician order ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation on 08/23/21 at 12:07 P.M. revealed lunch meal trays were delivered to the Parkside Unit common dining room. Staff...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident meals were provided in a homelike fashion. This ...
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
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner. This had potential to affect 69 out of 72 residents who receiv...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #221 revealed an admission date of 08/19/21. Diagnosis included unspecified sequela...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation of the Parkside Unit on 08/25/21 at 11:46 A.M. revealed the common shower with two shower stalls however only one...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on personnel file review, staff interview, and review of the Employee Handbook the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) received a 90 day or annual evaluation for thr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2019
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 medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow physician orders to notify the physician when blood glucose readings were outside of order...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate fingernail care for a resident was was dependent on staff for per...
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
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor a resident's blood glucose levels as ordered by a physician. This affected one (#14) of five residents reviewed for u...
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, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to maintain a resident's wheelchair in a safe condition. This affected one (#76) of four residents reviewed for ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure urology consults were obtained to...
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 record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate indication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to obtain laboratory values as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#14) of five residents...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 41% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $26,685 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 41 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $26,685 in fines. Higher than 94% of Ohio facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Astoria Place Of Waterville's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville Staffed?
CMS rates ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Astoria Place Of Waterville?
State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 36 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville?
ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE 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 CERTUS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WATERVILLE, Ohio.
How Does Astoria Place Of Waterville Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (41%) 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Astoria Place Of Waterville Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Astoria Place Of Waterville Stick Around?
ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville Ever Fined?
ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE has been fined $26,685 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,346. 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville on Any Federal Watch List?
ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE 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.