Apostolic Christian Home Inc
Rittman, Ohio · CCN 366248
4 surveys since 2012. The first finding at harm level was recorded in 2024.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 10
- Surveys
- 4
- Harm or worse
- 1
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 75
- Ownership
- Non profit - Church related
- Chain
- Independent
- County
- Wayne · rural
- Medicare-certified since
- 2002
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 5
- Health inspection
- 4
- Staffing
- 4
- Quality measures
- 5
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=5, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Feb 20, 2025
627 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 4.45 | 4.23 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 0.64 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 31.2% | 46.9% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G114.3% | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D571.4% | E— | F114.3% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Apostolic Christian Home Inc, in the surveyor’s own words.
- Actual harm, isolatedF600Apr 3, 2024
Based on observation, interviews, record review, review of facility staff statements, review of a facility self reported incident, and review of the facility's Abuse policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure Resident #263 was free from an incident of resident to resident sexual abuse when staff failed to prevent unwanted sexual contact. This affected one resident (#263) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 74. Actual harm occurred on 03/30/24 at approximately 5:30 P.M. when Resident #264,who was severely cognitively impaired, was observed with his hands inside the pants of his roommate, Resident #263, who was also severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for mobility. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812Feb 20, 2025
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the resident refrigerator was consistently monitored, failed to ensure food items were appropriately labeled, and failed to ensure food was discarded by the expiration date. This had the potential to affect 68 residents. The facility identified two residents (#29 and #30) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Observation on 02/19/25 at 1:50 P.M. of the resident refrigerator in the activity room (which was used to store residents' personal food items and containers) with Executive Chef #635 revealed the following: 1. An unlabeled and undated styrofoam container of soup with Resident #5's name on it. 2. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF692Feb 20, 2025
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely address a significant weight loss for one resident (#43) out of three residents reviewed for weight loss. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Record review for Resident #43 revealed an admitted [DATE]. Diagnosis included stiff man syndrome, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and lack of coordination. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #43 had no impairment to the upper or lower extremities, used a walker or wheelchair for mobility, and required set up or clean up assistance for meals. Resident #43 had no or unknown weight loss or gain. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF849Feb 20, 2025
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure coordination of care between Resident #59's hospice provider and the facility. This affected one resident (#59) of two residents reviewed for hospice care. The facility census was 70. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #59 revealed an admitted [DATE]. Diagnosis included but not limited to degenerative disease of the nervous system, multiple fractures, and history of falling. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 01/01/25 for Resident #59 to be admitted to hospice care effective 01/01/25. Resident #59's diagnosis for hospice care was recorded as of cerebral atrophy. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF880Feb 20, 2025
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained during incontinence care for two residents (#16 and #20) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility identified 25 residents who were noted to be incontinent of bowel and/or bladder. The facility census was 70. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #20 revealed an admitted [DATE]. Diagnosis included obstructive and reflux uropathy and age-related physical debility. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 was cognitively intact. Resident #20 had an indwelling catheter, was dependent for personal hygiene, and was always incontinent of bowel. […]
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Feb 20, 2025Standard4 findings
- Apr 3, 2024Complaint1 finding · 1 harm
- Jul 3, 2019Standard2 findings
- May 3, 2012—3 findings
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction