Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Laurels Of Milford during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two cognitively intact residents experienced breaches of dignity and privacy when staff failed to follow the facility's Privacy/Dignity policy. In one case, a staff member responded to a call light and loudly called a resident's name down the hallway to tell a nurse the resident needed the bathroom, which the resident later said she hoped others had not heard. In another case, a CNA entered a resident's closed room without knocking or permission during an interview, and the resident reported that staff frequently entered without asking, leaving her feeling she had no privacy. Staff acknowledged they were expected to knock and wait before entering, and facility policy required residents to be treated with dignity for all care needs.
Surveyors found that cable boxes in multiple rooms were improperly placed, either hanging by cords from wall-mounted TVs over beds or resting on room heaters, creating an unsafe and non-homelike environment. A resident reported repeatedly asking staff to move a cable box off the heater because it became hot and looked bad. Another resident stated that a box hanging over the bed made him fear it might fall on his head, and a third resident expressed concern about a box sitting on a heater becoming too hot, noting prior requests for correction. The Maintenance Director confirmed that the cable company had left the boxes in these positions and that they were not properly installed.
A facility failed to separate a COVID-19 positive resident from a negative one, despite available private rooms, risking virus spread. The COVID-19 positive resident remained in the same room with a negative resident, contrary to facility policy and CDC guidance. The facility did not contact the Local Health Department for guidance, and the decision was made to avoid exposing additional residents.
A resident with multiple health conditions was scratched and bruised by another resident after a wheelchair collision led to an argument. Despite visible injuries and staff awareness, the facility did not report the incident to the state agency, violating their abuse prohibition policy.
A resident with a stage three pressure ulcer did not receive proper wound care as an LPN failed to change gloves after cleaning the wound, contrary to facility policy. This lapse in procedure was confirmed through observation and staff interviews.
The facility failed to provide proper incontinence care for two residents, resulting in inadequate cleaning and potential risk of infection. Staff members admitted to improper practices during interviews.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity and Privacy During Care and Room Entry
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failure to honor residents' rights to dignity and privacy during routine care and interactions. One resident, admitted with diagnoses including anxiety and epilepsy and assessed as cognitively intact and frequently incontinent of urine, activated her call light to request assistance with toileting. A social services staff member responded, stood at the edge of the doorway, and loudly called the resident's name down the hallway to inform a nurse that the resident needed to use the bathroom. The resident later stated she hoped no residents or visitors heard the staff member yell about her toileting needs. The DON confirmed that the social services staff member should not have yelled the resident's name down the hall. Facility policy on Privacy/Dignity stated that residents should be treated with dignity. A second cognitively intact resident reported frequent intrusions into her room without permission. During an interview with the surveyor, conducted with the door closed, a CNA entered the room without knocking or obtaining permission, placed a meal tray in the room, and exited. The resident confirmed that staff frequently entered her room without permission and that she felt she had no privacy. The CNA acknowledged that staff were expected to knock and wait to be invited in before entering residents' rooms. The facility's Privacy/Dignity policy, dated 03/12/25, required staff to knock on residents' doors before entering and to treat residents with dignity for all care needs. These incidents were cited as noncompliance under multiple complaint numbers.
Improper Placement of Cable Boxes Compromising Safe, Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, specifically involving the placement of cable boxes in resident rooms. Random observations on multiple days showed cable boxes hanging by cords from wall-mounted televisions over residents’ beds and resting on room heating units. These boxes were not properly secured and were left either suspended above sleeping areas or placed directly on heaters. The facility census at the time was 132 residents, and three residents were specifically identified as affected by these environmental issues. One resident reported repeatedly asking staff to move the cable box from the heater, stating that the box was frequently hot to the touch and that its appearance was undesirable. Another resident, whose bed was against the wall where the TV and cable box were mounted, confirmed that the box hung down over the bed and expressed fear that it might fall and hit him in the head, noting he had asked many times for it to be secured. A third resident stated she was worried the cable box might become too hot because it was sitting on the heater and reported having asked the facility to fix it. The Maintenance Director confirmed that the cable company had left the boxes either hanging over beds or stored on top of heaters and acknowledged that the boxes were not hung properly and should be fixed. This deficiency was investigated under multiple complaint numbers listed in the report.
Failure to Isolate COVID-19 Positive Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its infection control policy by not separating a COVID-19 positive resident from a COVID-19 negative resident, potentially risking the spread of the virus. Resident #110, who tested positive for COVID-19, was not moved to a private room despite the availability of seven private rooms. Instead, Resident #110 remained in the same room with Resident #111, who tested negative for COVID-19 and showed no symptoms throughout the survey period. This decision was made despite the facility's policy and CDC guidance, which recommend placing COVID-19 positive residents in private rooms or cohorting them with other COVID-19 positive residents. The facility's policy, last revised in February 2024, clearly states that residents with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should be placed in a single-person room with a dedicated bathroom, if possible. The facility also failed to contact the Local Health Department to discuss the placement of Resident #111 after Resident #110 tested positive. Interviews with the administrator confirmed that Resident #111 was not moved due to concerns about exposing additional residents, despite the availability of private rooms. This deficiency was identified during a complaint investigation under Complaint Number OH00161474.
Failure to Report Resident-to-Resident Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse to the state agency, affecting one resident. The incident involved a resident with a history of cerebral infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, dementia without behaviors, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety disorder, who required partial/moderate assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and used a wheelchair for mobility. On the date of the incident, the resident received four scratches to her face and a small bruise on her right cheek after an altercation with another resident. The altercation occurred when the resident bumped into another resident's wheelchair, leading to an argument and subsequent scratching. The facility's Director of Nursing (DON) and a State tested Nurse Aide (STNA) were aware of the incident, but the facility did not file a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) because the family did not believe the act was intentional. The facility's failure to report the incident was in violation of their abuse prohibition policy, which mandates notifying state or federal agencies of such allegations per state guidelines. Despite the visible injuries observed on the resident days after the incident, no SRI was completed. The facility's policy review confirmed the requirement to report such incidents, yet the facility did not comply, resulting in a deficiency noted under Complaint Number OH00158040.
Failure to Follow Proper Wound Care Procedures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's pressure ulcer received the necessary treatment consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent infection. Resident #88, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for daily activities, had a stage three pressure ulcer on her right gluteus. During a dressing change, LPN #143 did not follow proper infection control procedures. After cleaning the wound, she did not change her gloves before handling the new dressing materials, which is against the facility's policy for clean dressing changes. The facility's policy requires that gloves be changed after cleaning the wound and before applying new dressing materials to prevent contamination. However, LPN #143 confirmed in an interview that she did not change her gloves after cleaning the wound, which was a deviation from the established protocol. This lapse in procedure was observed during a dressing change and was verified through staff interviews and policy review, leading to the deficiency noted in the report.
Improper Incontinence Care for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper and thorough incontinence care for two residents. Resident #88, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for toileting, was observed with a saturated brief and improper cleaning during incontinence care. The LPN and RN involved did not clean the resident's mons pubis or buttocks adequately, and the LPN admitted to not performing incontinence care for many years. Both staff members confirmed the deficiencies in their care practices during interviews. Resident #54, who was moderately cognitively impaired and also dependent on staff for toileting, was observed with improper cleaning techniques during incontinence care. The STNAs involved used incorrect motions and dry cloths to clean stool, which could potentially lead to infection. Both STNAs confirmed their improper practices during interviews. The facility's policy on perineal care was reviewed and found to be in contrast with the observed practices, emphasizing the need for proper cleaning to prevent infection.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 574 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 4 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Milford
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arbors At Milford | 0.7 mi | — | 11 | 0 |
| S.e.m. Haven Health Care Center | 2.2 mi | — | 9 | 0 |
| Otterbein Loveland | 2.7 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Florentine Gardens | 2.7 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Venetian Gardens | 4.7 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for The Laurels Of Milford.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.