National Church Residences Bristol Village
Waverly, Ohio · CCN 365742
11 surveys since 2011, 1 of them producing a finding at harm level or worse.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 42
- Surveys
- 11
- 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
- 40
- Ownership
- Non profit - Corporation
- Chain
- Independent
- County
- Pike · rural
- Medicare-certified since
- 1989
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 5
- Health inspection
- 5
- Staffing
- 3
- Quality measures
- 4
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=6, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Nov 7, 2023
1,098 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 | 3.62 | 4.41 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 0.77 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 50.0% | 50.8% |
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 | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D583.3% | E— | F116.7% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at National Church Residences Bristol Village, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812Nov 17, 2022
Based on observation, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to properly store, date (label), and prepare food to protect against contamination and/or spoilage. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: 1. On 11/14/22 at 8:45 A.M. and 9:20 A.M. observation in the kitchen revealed three sealed/unopened packages of ham in a large plastic container in the walk in refrigerator. Two packages were thawed and cool to the refrigerator's temperature. One package still had frost/ice on the outside and was frozen to touch. Neither package had a date as to when it was delivered or when it was removed from the freezer to thaw for service. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF610Nov 7, 2023
Based on record review, facility reported incident review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation for an allegation of physical abuse. This affected one resident (#75) of three residents reviewed for allegations of abuse. The facility census was 36. Findings included: Closed record review revealed Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic systolic congestive heart failure, dysphagia, anemia, panic disorder, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF692Nov 7, 2023
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were provided to residents in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#74) of three residents reviewed for nutrition services. The facility census was 36. Findings included: Record review revealed Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, heart failure, chronic kidney disease stage 3, anemia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and atrial fibrillation. Review of a minimum data set (MDS) assessment collected on 11/02/22 revealed Resident #74 had mildly impaired cognition, no behaviors, required set up or clean up assistance with meals, and was receiving a therapeutic diet. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF623Nov 17, 2022
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the State Ombudsman was notified of a transfer to the hospital involving Resident #16. This affected one resident (#16) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization . Findings Include: Record review for Resident #16 revealed an admitted [DATE] with diagnoses [MEDICAL RECORD OR PHYSICIAN ORDER] . Review of the 10/12/22 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact, required limited assistance from staff for dressing and supervision (from staff) for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF644Nov 17, 2022
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #18's Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents were accurate related to the resident's condition and diagnoses. This affected one resident (#18) of one resident reviewed for PASARR. Findings Include: Record review revealed Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses [MEDICAL RECORD OR PHYSICIAN ORDER] . Review of Resident #18 PASARR document, dated 12/16/19 revealed under Section D, it indicated the resident had no mental health diagnoses. However, review of the resident's diagnoses [MEDICAL RECORD OR PHYSICIAN ORDER] . Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/10/22 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. On 11/17/22 at 10:09 A.M. […]
Read 21 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 21 of 42 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Nov 7, 2023Complaint2 findings
- Nov 17, 2022Standard4 findings
- Jan 23, 2020Standard1 finding
- Nov 8, 2018Standard1 finding
- Aug 31, 2017Standard4 findings
- Jun 16, 2016Standard3 findings
- Mar 12, 2015Standard3 findings
- Nov 27, 2013—3 findings
Show the 3 earlier surveys
- Aug 31, 2012—12 findings
- Jun 16, 2011—8 findings
- Jan 6, 2011—1 finding · 1 harm
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