WAYNE COUNTY CARE CENTER

876 S GEYERS CHAPEL ROAD, WOOSTER, OH 44691 (330) 262-1786
Government - County 50 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
70/100
#372 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: November 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

The Wayne County Care Center has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good choice for care, falling in the upper range of nursing facilities. It ranks #372 out of 913 in Ohio, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and #5 out of 14 in Wayne County, meaning only four local options are better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2022 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is rated average with a 57% turnover rate, which is higher than the state average, suggesting some instability among staff. Notably, there have been serious incidents, including a resident falling and sustaining significant injuries because the necessary two-person assistance was not provided, and concerns about the management of resident funds due to missing authorization documentation. While there are strengths, such as no fines on record and good overall health inspection ratings, these weaknesses should be carefully considered by families.

Trust Score
B
70/100
In Ohio
#372/913
Top 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% 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
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Ohio. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 2 issues
2024: 5 issues

The Good

  • 4-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

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Nov 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0567 (Tag F0567)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who wanted the facility to manage resident funds had a signed authorization for the facility to manage their resident funds...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who wanted the facility to manage resident funds had a signed authorization for the facility to manage their resident funds. This affected two residents (#19 and #37) out of 24 residents with resident funds. Findings Include: Review of the Resident Funds for Resident #19 revealed the current balance of $2,210.05 in the Resident funds account, There was no documentation that Resident #19 signed authorization for the facility to manage his resident funds. Review of the Resident Funds for Resident #37 revealed the currant balance of $3,716.61 in the Resident funds account. There was no documentation that Resident #37 signed authorization for the facility to manage his resident funds. Interview on 11/12/24 at 3:01 P.M. with Fiscal Specialist #300 verified there were no resident funds authorizations forms for Resident #19 and Resident #37.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents receive a spend down notice prior to reaching the maximum allowed limit for Medicaid benefits. This affected two residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents receive a spend down notice prior to reaching the maximum allowed limit for Medicaid benefits. This affected two residents (Resident #4 and #19) out of 24 residents with resident funds. Findings Include: Review of the Resident Funds for Resident #19 revealed a balance of $3,716.61 in the Resident Funds account. The facility is to notify the resident when their account reaches $200 below the allotted amount ($2000), which could cause the resident to lose their Medicaid benefits. Review of the Resident Funds for Resident #4 revealed a balance of $4,814.47 in the Resident Funds account. The facility is to notify the resident when their account reaches $200 below the allotted amount ($2000), which could cause the resident to lose their Medicaid benefits. Interview on 11/12/24 at 3:01 P.M. with Fiscal Specialist #300 verified Resident #4 and #19 did not receive written notification that their accounts were over the allotted amount and could affect residents Medicaid benefits. Residents are to be notified that they are getting close to the limit so that they can use their funds or the funds need to be returned to Medicaid.
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 the medical record, review of therapy assessments, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to Resident #41. This affected one r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the medical record, review of therapy assessments, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to Resident #41. This affected one resident (#41) of two reviewed for beneficiary notification. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 03/14/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage affecting non-dominant left side, muscle wasting and atrophy to bilateral lower extremities, and unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility. Resident #41 was discharged on 06/04/24. Review of the physician's orders for June 2024 identified orders for occupational therapy five to seven times per week for four weeks (ordered 05/08/24) and physical therapy five to seven times per week for four weeks (ordered 05/06/24). Review of the progress note, dated 05/10/24 at 1:08 P.M., revealed Social Services Designee (SSD) #245 met with Resident #41 and his daughter to discuss discharge planning, a discharge meeting was scheduled for 05/22/24, and Resident #41's therapy discharge date was set for 06/03/24. Review of the discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/04/24, revealed Resident #41 had no cognitive impairment. The assessment indicated Resident #41 required partial or moderate assistance for showering, dressing, sit to stand, transfers, and walking, and supervision or touching assistance for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and bed mobility. Resident #41 received 894 minutes of speech therapy over 24 days, 2,797 minutes of occupational therapy over 56 days, and 2,887 minutes of physical therapy over 57 days. Review of the physical therapy recertification assessment, dated 05/08/24, revealed Resident #41 was certified for physical therapy services through 06/01/24. Review of the occupational therapy recertification assessment, dated 05/08/24, revealed Resident #41 was certified for occupational therapy services through 06/03/24. On 11/13/24 at 2:56 P.M., an interview with SSD #245 confirmed a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was not provided to Resident #41 because he was not managed care and it was not an involuntary discharge. SSD #245 was unaware that a NOMNC was supposed to be provided to individuals receiving skilled services covered under Medicare Part A. On 11/14/24 at 8:09 A.M., an interview with Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) #303 confirmed the recertification dates for therapy services were the dates Resident #41 was approved for therapy services covered by insurance. On 11/14/24 at 9:00 A.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the progress note dated 05/10/24 indicated Resident #41 would be discharged from therapy on 06/03/24 with a discharge planning meeting scheduled with Resident #41's family on 05/22/24. The DON stated a NOMNC should have been issued to Resident #41.
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, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to change the oxygen tubing in a timely manner for Resident #8. This affected one resident (#8) of one reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to change the oxygen tubing in a timely manner for Resident #8. This affected one resident (#8) of one reviewed for oxygen use. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 02/27/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, anxiety, ovarian cancer, hypertension, depression, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. Review of the respiratory care plan, revised 01/18/24, revealed Resident #8 had the potential for altered breathing patterns related to shortness of breath, anxiety, decreased energy, fatigue, and hypoxia. Interventions included administer oxygen via nasal cannula as per orders and observe effects (revised 07/05/23) and change oxygen tubing as per physician's orders (revised 07/05/23). Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/02/24, revealed Resident #8 had severe cognitive impairment and utilized oxygen therapy. Review of the physician's orders for November 2024 identified orders for change oxygen tubing, bag and aerosol set-up every Saturday (ordered 06/10/23). Review of the treatment administration record (TAR) for November 2024 indicated Resident #8's oxygen tubing was changed on 11/09/24, signed as administered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #503. On 11/12/24 at 9:05 A.M., an observation of Resident #8 revealed she was laying in bed with eyes closed, not responsive to verbal stimuli, and was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing was dated 11/02/24. On 11/12/24 at 9:10 A.M., an observation and interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #229 verified Resident #8's oxygen tubing was dated 11/02/24. On 11/12/24 at 3:11 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility's policy was to change the oxygen tubing at least every seven days or as needed. On 11/13/24 at 9:17 A.M., an attempt to interview LPN #503 via phone was unsuccessful. Review of the facility's policy titled Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection, dated November 2011, indicated the oxygen cannula and tubing would be changed every seven days or as needed.
Sept 2024 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 a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, record review, review of hospital records, facility investigation review, person...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, record review, review of hospital records, facility investigation review, personnel file review, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide adequate staff assistance during resident care resulting in a fall with major injury. Actual harm occurred on 07/24/24 at 4:20 A.M. when State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #300 was providing incontinence care to Resident #6, who required two staff assistance with bed mobility, repositioned the resident onto her right side and Resident #6 kicked her left leg out and began sliding out of the bed and landed on her right side. The resident sustained bruising to her right hand, left eye, left shin, left index finger, right upper chest and right forearm, a skin tear to left hand third digit and pain to right leg and hip. An x-ray of the right hip and leg was completed on 07/25/24 at 9:21 A.M. and revealed a fracture to the right femoral neck. The resident was subsequently transferred to the hospital and had surgical repair of the right hip. This affected one resident (Resident #6) out of two residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 40. Findings Include: A review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date 06/30/22 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia, stroke, high blood pressure, anxiety, contractures, and osteoporosis. A review of Resident #6's skin impairment risk care plan dated 07/05/22 and revised on 07/25/24 revealed a low air loss mattress to the bed for pressure reduction related to impaired mobility. A review of Resident #6's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care plan revision date 04/13/24 revealed Resident #6 required total assist with all ADL and mobility tasks with one to two assists with incontinence care and toileting and two persons assist with bed mobility. Further review of Resident #6's care plan revealed fall care plan revised 08/11/22 revealed interventions including keep call light in easy reach, keep frequently used items in easy reach, observe Resident #6 has nonslip footwear in place, and observe Resident #6's glasses are kept in a safe place, assist with placement prior to transfers. A review of Resident #6 fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was at high risk for falls related to muscle weakness, contractures and dementia. Review of the current physician orders revealed acetaminophen 650 milligrams orally every four hours as needed for pain- not to exceed 3,000 mg daily and Morphine Sulfate (concentrate) oral solution 10 mg per 0.5 milliliters (ml)- give 10 mg by mouth every two hours as needed for dyspnea (shortness of breath) both dated 05/24/24. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 had severely impaired cognition with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of two out of a possible 15. Resident #6 was always incontinent of both urine and bowel requiring staff assistance with incontinence care. Resident #6 was non-ambulatory using a wheelchair for mobility and was dependent on staff for completion of all cares including transfers and bed mobility. A review of Resident #6's [NAME] (information reference for State Tested Nursing Assistants regarding resident specific needs to be able to provide the appropriate care) dated 07/24/24 revealed Resident #6 required one-to-two-person assistance with toileting and incontinence care and two persons assist with bed mobility. A review of Resident #6's progress notes revealed: On 07/24/24 at 7:06 A.M., authored by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #224, revealed at 4:30 A.M. STNA #300 reported Resident #6 had rolled out of bed onto right side while providing care. Upon entering room Resident #6 was observed positioned on her back on the floor beside the bed with a pillow under her head. LPN #224 assessed Resident #6 with vital signs including blood pressure - 152/92 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) (normal blood pressure is 120/80 mmHg), pulse - 94 (beats per minute) (normal range 60-90), respirations (per minute) (normal range 12-20 breaths per minute) - 20, temperature - 97.6 (degrees Fahrenheit) and blood oxygen (saturation) level 93% (normal greater than 92%). On further exam there was a skin tear noted to (the resident's) left hand third digit and discoloration observed to (the) left index digit prior to transfer back into bed. Resident #6 was awake, and no pain or distress indications were observed by LPN #224. The physician and Director of Nursing was notified of the fall. On 07/24/24 at 7:30 A.M., authored by LPN #222, revealed STNAs (unidentified) reported Resident #6 required assistance in her room, upon entry LPN #222 observed Resident #6 was sitting in the wheelchair slouched forward and drooling. Resident #6 was difficult to arouse with a blood pressure reading at 89/50 (mmHg) and pulse at 90 (bpm), respirations were uneven and unlabored (no respiratory rate or additional assessment of the resident's respiratory status was documented). After approximately 90 seconds, Resident #6 returned to baseline level of alertness and orientation. Resident #6 was returned to bed by staff and the use of a mechanical lift. Resident #6's blood pressure reading was 120/58 (mmHg) and pulse was 89 (bpm). Resident #6 refused the breakfast meal and denied having pain. On 07/24/24 at 10:27 A.M., authored by Registered Nurse (RN) #320, revealed Resident #6's daughter was notified of the fall and a new order for diuretic medication Lasix related to increased edema to lower legs noted on 07/23/24. On 07/24/24 at 9:31 P.M., authored by RN #257, revealed an STNA (unidentified) alerted RN supervisor (RN #257), and staff LPN regarding Resident #6 was grimacing and yelling with movement of her right leg during evening care. Resident #6's right lower leg below the knee was observed discolored and swollen and presented as displaced (there was no further clarification indicated in the medical record) and RN #257 was not available for interview). The physician, Director of Nursing and wound nurse were notified. On 07/24/24 at 11:29 P.M., authored by RN #257, revealed a new order for a right femur two views X-ray, right tibia/fibula two view X-ray related to acute pain due to trauma/fall. The right leg presents displaced and Resident #6 grimacing and yelling out during care. On 07/25/24 at 12:58 P.M., authored by RN #315, revealed Resident #6's daughter was updated on (the resident's) current condition, pain management, pending X-ray results and ongoing fall investigation. On 07/25/24 at 2:27 P.M., authored by RN #315, revealed the physician and the Director of Nursing were notified of the X-ray results. Per the physician recommendation to call the family to see if they want the resident evaluated for an orthopedic consult for surgical intervention, Resident #6's daughter was notified and will speak with the rest of the family. On 07/25/24 at 3:15 P.M., authored by RN #257, revealed Resident #6's daughter notified the facility and requested Resident #6 be sent to the hospital for evaluation by an orthopedic physician. RN #257 updated the physician, and an order was received for Resident #6 to be transferred to the hospital. Transportation was requested and will be at the facility at 4:15 P.M. Resident #6's family was notified and will meet Resident #6 at the hospital. On 07/25/24 at 8:30 P.M., authored by LPN #312, revealed the hospital notified the facility Resident #6 was being admitted to the hospital for surgical repair of her right hip fracture. A review of Resident #6's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 07/01 /24 to 07/26/24 revealed the following entries for pain management: On 07/24/24 at 5:13 A.M. acetaminophen 650 milligrams (mg) orally (po) was administered for a pain level at three out of 10) on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being no pain and 10 indicating the worst pain). On 07/24/24 9:42 P.M. Morphine 10 mg/0.5 milliliter (ml) was administered by mouth for pain level at eight out of 10. On 07/25/24 at 8:10 A.M. Morphine 10 mg po was administered for pain level at six out of 10. On 07/25/24 at 12:11 P.M. Morphine 10 mg po for a pain level of three out of 10. On 07/25/24 at 4:00 P.M. Morphine 10 mg for a pain level at three out of 10. A review of Resident #6's X-ray results with service date 07/25/24 at 9:12 A.M. and report date 07/25/24 at 1:24 P.M. revealed the conclusion was a right femoral neck/intertrochanteric fracture and right periprosthetic supracondylar fracture with evidence of mild healing. A review of Resident #6's hospital documents dated 07/25/24 to 07/29/24 revealed Resident #6 received an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery related to the right femoral neck fracture on 07/28/24 and was discharged back to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the facility's fall investigation for Resident #6 dated 07/24/24 and 07/25/24 revealed a statement dated 07/24/24 at 6:30 A.M. authored by STNA #300 indicating Resident #6 was administered incontinence care and bed mobility by STNA #300 without assistance from other staff members. Resident #6 had been moving her legs during care and STNA #300 requested Resident #6 to stop moving her legs, but Resident #6 continued to move her legs. STNA #300 had repositioned Resident #6 onto her right side to continue incontinence care. STNA #300 stated Resident #6 moved her left leg over the edge of the bed and then continued to slide off the edge of the bed onto the floor. STNA #300 immediately moved onto the bed and lowered Resident #6's upper body onto the floor. STNA #300 ensured Resident #6 was safe and went to notify the floor nurse of the incident. A statement dated 07/26/24 authored by LPN #224 revealed LPN #224 had been Resident #6's nurse during the incident on 07/24/24 at 4:30 A.M. when LPN #224 was performing medication administration when STNA #300 advised her Resident #6 was on the floor beside the bed, lying on her right side. Resident was repositioned onto her back for LPN #224 to complete a head-to-toe assessment. LPN #224 assessed for range of motion to bilateral lower extremities, there was no range of motion observed due to contractures. There was no displacement and/or shortening of either leg prior to transferring Resident #6 back into bed by use of a mechanical lift. Review of Self-Reported Incident Tracking Number 250054 dated 07/25/24 revealed an allegation of physical abuse and neglect when Resident #6 fell out of bed on 07/24/24. An assessment was completed, and the resident showed no signs of pain or discomfort. Today (07/25/24), the resident showed signs of pain and discomfort. Through investigation, the Administrator identified Resident #6 required two-person assistance with bed mobility. The resident was limited with any mobility, required the use of a Hoyer (mechanical) lift from her chair to the bed. The resident is unable to stand or walk and has limited cognitive ability but recognizes familiar faces with a smile. Further review revealed STNA #300 provided a statement and explained what happened on 07/24/24. The STNA explained to the Administrator and others that she was providing incontinence care and rolled Resident #6 to herself on the left side (of the resident). She then rolled the resident over to her right side, when the resident's left leg jerked and she (the resident) started sliding out of bed. STNA #6 grabbed her on the right and crawled on the bed to get a better hold of Resident #6. STNA #300 could not hold the resident so she helped the resident to the floor. STNA #300 did move her head, putting a pillow under it and went to the hallway for help. The LPN then did evaluate the resident checking range of motion and vitals. The LPN then told the STNAs to get the Hoyer. They Hoyered her (the resident) back to bed. The facility unsubstantiated the allegation citing evidence was inconclusive, but abuse, neglect or misappropriation is suspected. In conclusion, statements did support STNA #300 was not following the resident's care [NAME]. A review of STNA #300 employee file revealed a hire date of 02/08/21 and a resignation date of 08/01/24. STNA #300 had been suspended on 07/24/24 pending completion of the fall investigation for Resident #6. STNA #300 was scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on 08/01/24 at 1:00 P.M. STNA #300 had submitted a resignation letter dated 08/01/24 with resignation effective immediately and did not attend the scheduled conference. Attempts to reach LPN #224 and RN #320 were made during the survey however, unsuccessful. No return calls from either nurse were provided. An interview on 09/09/24 at 9:50 A.M. with the Administrator confirmed Resident #6's fall was caused when inappropriate assistance by STNA #300 during incontinence care on 07/24/24 at 4:20 A.M. The Administrator stated a facility investigation was initiated immediately with STNA #300 being suspended pending completion of the investigation. The facility had scheduled a pre-disciplinary conference with STNA #300 on 08/01/24 however, the STNA submitted her immediate resignation on 08/01/24 without reason provided. Observation on 09/09/24 at 1:15 P.M. revealed Resident #6 was sitting in a Broda wheelchair in the unit lounge watching television. Resident #6 was not observed in bed to watch bed mobility assist by staff. Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls and fall Risk, managing dated 03/18 revealed, Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00156843 and OH00156546.
May 2022 2 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

Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #16's advance directive wishes were accurately documented and consistent throughout th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #16's advance directive wishes were accurately documented and consistent throughout the medical record. This affected one resident (#16) of 16 residents whose records were reviewed for advance directives. Findings include: Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, depression, and mild cognitive impairment. Review of the electronic health record revealed a code status of Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-A) (providers would treat resident as any other without a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order until the point of cardiac or respiratory arrest at which point all interventions would cease and the DNR Comfort Care (DNRCC) would be implemented). A sticker on the physical medical record indicated a DNRCC-A status but no corresponding form/order was able to be located. On 05/23/22 at 3:24 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #112 was interviewed regarding the resident having no signed code status form in the medical record. LPN #112 reported she would notify the supervisor. On 05/24/22 Resident #16 was noted to have a form signed 02/13/15 in the medical record indicating her desired code status was DNRCC. The sticker was changed from DNRCCA to DNRCC. The code status in the electronic health record had been changed to DNRCC. On 05/24/22 at 1:35 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing revealed Resident #16 used to reside in the residential care facility and had a signed DNRCC. No DNRCCA form was able to be located. Once she learned of the discrepancy in the medical record on 05/23/22 she educated Resident #16 on the difference between DNRCC and DNRCCA. Resident #16 indicated she desired a DNRCC code status and the sticker and electronic health record were changed. The signed DNRCC order from 2015 was placed in the resident's medical record. Review of the facility Advance Directives policy, revised December 2016 revealed prior to or upon admission of a resident, the social services director or designee would inquire of the resident, his/her family members and/or his or her legal representative, about the existence of any written advance directive. Information about whether or not the resident had executed an advance directive should be displayed prominently in the medical record. The plan of care for each resident would be consistent with his or her documented treatment preferences and/or advance directive. Review of a paper titled Ohio's Do-Not -Resuscitate Law, provided by the facility, revealed with a DNRCC order a person received any care that eased pain and suffering but no resuscitative measures to save or sustain life from the moment the order was signed by the physician. With a DNRCC-Arrest order, a person received standard medical care that may include some components of resuscitation until he or she experienced a cardiac or respiratory arrest.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely provision of dental services for Resident #11. This affected one resident (#11) of three residents reviewed for dental service...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely provision of dental services for Resident #11. This affected one resident (#11) of three residents reviewed for dental services. Findings include: Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed diagnoses including delusional disorder, psychotic disorder, depression, dementia, and Parkinson's disease. A plan of care, initiated 06/14/18 indicated Resident #11 had two dental implants and had all her own teeth. An intervention initiated 06/28/18 (revised 08/25/20) revealed staff were to assist with any dental appointments, transportation and paperwork needed as necessary. Review of a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 08/21/21 indicated Resident #11 had obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. Review of a dental progress note and summary report, dated 01/20/22 revealed Resident #11 presented with tooth tenderness and slight puffiness at tooth #5 and a missing crown at tooth #7. Treatment planned for the next visit included extraction of tooth #5 and further evaluation of tooth #7 including radiography. No additional dental visit notes were located. On 05/25/22 at 3:13 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the dentist provided documentation via email regarding visit notes. The DON stated once the dental notes were received, they were reviewed by social service, herself, and the MDS nurse. When a procedure was needed the dental provider sent consent forms for resident/family to consent and for the physician to give medical clearance. The DON revealed since the dentist had not sent the forms to be completed, Resident #11 was not seen by the dentist when they made their visit in February. The dental provider was notified today and the forms were provided. The facility called and obtained consent over the phone from Resident #11's grandson. The physician clearance papers had been placed in the physician's folder to be completed. On 05/25/22 at 3:18 P.M. interview with Social Service Director (SSD) #148 revealed since Resident #11's dental visit on 01/20/22 was an emergency visit the information from the dentist was emailed to the facility. SSD #148 stated once she received the paper work from the dentist she scanned the information into the record and provided a copy to the DON and MDS nurse. SSD #148 revealed she did not review the information since she was unable to contact families or residents to obtain consent for procedures. SSD #148 revealed the dental provider generally created a list of residents to be seen before each visit and she was able to add to the list. Someone must communicate to her that a resident needed dental services so she could add them to the list. If a resident had an emergency visit and needed a follow up the dental provider generally sent a consent to treat and physician clearance forms. Resident #11 was now on the list to be seen by the dentist on 05/31/22. On 05/25/22 at 3:31 P.M. interview with SSD #148 indicated she received the 01/20/22 dental notes for Resident #11 via email on 01/25/22. The next regular dental visit was on 02/07/22. SSD #148 revealed if she had been informed of the plan to extract teeth for Resident #11 she could have requested the necessary forms and added her to the list of residents to receive services on 02/07/22. Review of a contract with Mobile Medical, effective on 05/26/16 revealed dental services to be provided at the facility included dental examinations and oral cancer screening, diagnostic x-ray examination, prophylaxis and denture cleaning, tooth surface restorations, simple extractions, removable prosthetic fabrication, relines and repairs. This deficiency substantiates Complaint Number OH00132855.
Sept 2019 1 deficiency
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 interview the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary kitchen for food storage and preparation. This affected 46 out of 47 residents who received meals from the dietar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary kitchen for food storage and preparation. This affected 46 out of 47 residents who received meals from the dietary department (Resident #36 did not receive meals prepared by dietary staff). Findings: 1. A tour of the kitchen was conducted with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #102 at 8:43 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. on 09/03/19. During the tour, the vent behind the ice machine, the ceiling vent over the roll in cooler, and the wood fixture by the ice machine coming from the ceiling connected to the door magnet contained heavy dust build up. Observation of the kitchen on 09/03/19 at 11:30 A.M. revealed Dietary Aide (DA) #101 came into the kitchen, reached into a small bin of cup lids and took one out. DA #101 shook the water off the lid and left the kitchen area and placed it on an unidentified resident's coffee cup. Observation of the bin containing the lids revealed a small amount of brown liquid fluid in the bottom of the bin. The observation was verified with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #102 on 09/03/19. 2. Kitchen observations were conducted between 11:00 A.M. and 12:36 P.M. on 09/03/19. Dietary [NAME] #100 was preparing the residents' plates for lunch. During meal preparation, Dietary [NAME] #100 finished preparing a lunch plate then left the tray line to look for lids for soup bowls. Upon returning to the tray line, Dietary [NAME] #100 opened the lids and began preparing lunch meals without washing hands. Interview with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #102 at 12:00 P.M. on 09/03/19 confirmed the finding.
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

  • "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

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 70/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Wayne County's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WAYNE COUNTY 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 Wayne County Staffed?

CMS rates WAYNE COUNTY CARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 70%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Wayne County?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at WAYNE COUNTY CARE CENTER during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 7 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Wayne County?

WAYNE COUNTY CARE CENTER is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 50 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WOOSTER, Ohio.

How Does Wayne County Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, WAYNE COUNTY CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wayne County?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Wayne County Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WAYNE COUNTY 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 Wayne County Stick Around?

Staff turnover at WAYNE COUNTY CARE CENTER is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 70%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Wayne County Ever Fined?

WAYNE COUNTY 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 Wayne County on Any Federal Watch List?

WAYNE COUNTY 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.