No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Health Center At The Renaissance

26376 John Rd, Olmsted Twp, OH 44138 · Non profit - Corporation · 85 certified beds · (440) 235-7100 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (440) 235-7100 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citations on record (F0600, F0602) — most recent Oct 20251 actual-harm citation
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Oct 2025
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
26908 Cook Rd · (440) 414-9700 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
25115 Country Club Blvd · (440) 826-2834 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
7070 Columbia Rd · (440) 235-0474 · Call to confirm hours
Park
7370 Columbia Rd · (440) 235-2646 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased8.9%5.3%15.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.3%6.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%0.2%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%0.4%2.0%typical for the state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.8%30.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.1%3.2%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.0%6.1%16.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication24.5%25.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.0%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control18.7%21.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table1.6%8.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.2%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine72.8%75.6%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission31.6%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.5%12.9%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.831.731.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.621.801.80typical

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

54.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 154 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

54.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
35.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.51U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.25hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 35.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 82 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.51 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF54.5%CMS range 46.9–62.551.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.0%CMS range 6.5–12.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge35.4%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge23.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge40.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified99.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting96.3%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge96.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.7%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.2%CMS range 3.3–9.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.741.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.61
RN hours/ resident / day
1.12
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.57
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.30
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.47
RN hoursweekends
51.4%
Total nursing turnover
15.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 85 beds and averages 72.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.30 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.57 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.46 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-10-06)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2023-08-03)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2025-10-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, hospital record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized fall prevention program/fall interventions to decrease Resident #2's risk of falls including falls with injury. This affected one resident (#2) of one resident reviewed for falls. The facility census was 82.Actual Harm occurred on 12/09/24 when Resident #2, who was at risk for falls and had a history of falls, sustained a left hip fracture without evidence the facility had implemented individualized and effective interventions to prevent the fall with fracture. The resident had sustained falls on 11/29/24 and 12/08/24 with the only intervention listed post fall was to remind the resident to call for assistance. Actual Harm continued on 02/10/25 when Resident #2, who remained at risk for falls and continued to sustain falls, was assessed to have a right hip fracture as a result of a fall when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #899 failed to maintain hands-on contact…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review, staff interviews, review of Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), and review of facility concern logs, a soft file investigation and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Residents #33 and #48 were free from verbal and physical abuse. This affected two residents (#33 and #48) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 82.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 08/23/20 and diagnoses including dementia, hypertension, and major depressive disorder.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 had short- and long-term cognition impairment, was severely impaired regarding tasks of daily life, had a history of physical and verbally aggressive behaviors, was resistant to care, and was dependent on staff for toileting, lower body dressing and mobility.Review of the care plan last updated on 08/22/25 revealed Resident #33 had a diagnosis of dementia with a history of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-06 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review, staff interviews, review of Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), review of facility soft file investigation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an incident of alleged abuse to the State Agency. This affected one (Resident #48) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 82.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, osteoarthritis of the left knee, and right artificial hip joint. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three which indicated severe cognitive impairment and the resident was dependent on staff for toileting, lower body dressing and hygiene. Review of the physician orders dated 03/03/25 revealed an order to assist Resident #48 with turning and repositioning during routine rounds and as needed. Review of the progress note dated 03/04/25 at…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-06 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide accommodation for a dependent resident's needs. This affected one (Resident #38) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 82. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 01/30/22 with diagnoses including dementia, major depressive disorder, and carpal tunnel syndrome of the right upper limb. Resident #38 received hospice care services. Review of the physician order dated 07/06/23 revealed an order for Resident #38 to reside in the memory support unit. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the care plan dated 08/18/25 revealed Resident #38 had an altered nutritional status related to dementia with a contributing history of decreased meal acceptance and weight loss.…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were given according to physician's orders, creating a medication error rate of 16.0 percent (%). This affected two residents (#29 and #32) of three residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 82. Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 09/08/25 and diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, ventricular tachycardia, and stage four chronic kidney disease. A physician's order dated 09/18/25 was for 12.5 milligrams (mg) of spironolactone (a diuretic) to be given daily, with no other current orders for this medication. Another physician's order dated 09/08/25 was for a senna-docusate 8.6-50 mg (laxative and stool softener) combination medication to be given twice daily, and no current order for any senna-only pills to be given. Observation of a medication administration procedure for Resident #29 on 09/24/25 at 8:29 A.M. by Registered Nurse (RN) #868 revealed the nurse drew out two…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-21 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
    Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and interviews, the facility did not ensure all residents were protected from misappropriation of resident funds by staff. This affected one resident of four residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 74. Findings included: Record review for Resident #535 revealed an admission date of 05/22/23 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder, hypertension, constipation, anorexia, major depressive disorder. Record review of the facility Minimum Data Set ( MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status ( BIMS) score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of the SRI dated 10/03/23 and the facility investigation revealed agency State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) # 176 took a check from Resident #535 and wrote it out for $4000. On 10/03/23 the family of Resident #535 alerted the facility that a check allegedly signed by Resident #535 had been electronically presented for payment to…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-03-12 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a variety of foods were offered for Resident #51 and Resident #85 and failed to ensure Resident #2, Resident #65 and Resident #80, who were ordered a pureed diet received the proper serving size of soup. This affected two residents (#51 and #85) of four residents reviewed for food concerns based on the menu and three residents (#2, #65 and #80) of three residents reviewed for pureed diets. Findings include: On 03/10/20 observation of both the lunch and dinner meals revealed beef and barley soup was served for both meals. Interview with Dietary Managers #201 and #202 on 03/10/20 at 5:45 P.M. regarding observations of beef barley soup having been served on 03/10/20 for both lunch and dinner meals, and concerns residents (#51 and #85) had stated in regard to the lack of variety of meals served were discussed. Dietary Manager #201 stated, The same meals are not served back to back and denied beef and barley soup had been served at lunch and dinner on 03/10/20. Review of the menu spreadsheet on 03/10/20 with…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a sanitary food preparation area was maintained during tray/serving line of meals to prevent potential contamination and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to affect 44 residents (#1, #2, #4, #5, #7, #9, #12, #13, #14, #18, #20, #22, #24, #27, #28, #29, #31, #35, #37, #48, #49, #51, #52, #58, #61, #64, #65, #66, #68, #73, #74, #77, #79, #80, #81, #84, #88, #90, #91, #93, #293, #294, #295 and #296) of 45 residents who take foods by mouth, reside on the second floor and receive their meals from the pantry. Findings include: Interview with Dietary Manager #201 on 03/09/20 at 10:00 A.M. revealed all dietary staff had been trained in safe food serving. Observation of the second floor food tray/serving line 03/10/20 at 11:28 A.M. revealed Dietary Aide #200 was observed to put a used paper towel, alcohol wipe and wrapper onto the serving area and those items fell upon the heavily traveled pantry floor. Dietary Aide #200 picked the items up off of the floor with bare hands and placed them back onto…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2020-03-12 · tag F0625 — widespread
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure proper bed hold notices were provided as required upon resident transfers to the hospital. This affected two residents (#3 and #66) and had the potential to affect all 87 residents residing in the facility. Finding include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis, bladder dysfunction and peripheral vascular disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/17/20 revealed the resident had intact cognition and needed extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers and toileting. Review of nurses' progress note, dated 12/24/19 revealed resident was sent to the emergency room for increased temperature and lethargy. There was no evidence the resident's representative was provided the facility written bed hold policy notice at the time of transfer. Interview on 03/12/20 at 2:22 P.M. with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #203 verified the facility could…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ELIZA JENNINGS SENIOR CARE NETWORKOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 10/04/1989
FLETCHER, RICHARDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/01/1991
FODOR, ALAYNEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/08/2010
FOX, RICHARDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 05/03/2021
HARTNEY, MARGARETIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/01/2023
KRASSEN, GLENNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 02/07/2013
ROGERSON, JAMESIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 02/03/2021
SCANLON, PATRICIAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 11/04/2024
SEREDA, SHERYLIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/01/2023
SHROCK, TERRIEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/01/1991
STONER, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/01/2023
TRACY, ALLENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/11/2018
WEIGLE, FREDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 02/07/2008
WEITZEL, MARGARETIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 06/03/2010
YOUNG, HILTONIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 05/03/2021
BOYSON, RICHARDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/18/2015
GRAY, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2019
GRIVEAS, JENNIFERIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/10/2017
SHIELDS, KATHLEENIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2007
BRENNER, SILVIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 11/27/2000
CARDONE, SUZANNEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/21/2015
GREGG, BRIANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/21/1985
JOHNSON, KATHLEENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 11/28/2022
POCHATEK, SHANNONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2024
POORE, SUZANNEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/07/2012
RITCHIE, AMANDAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2020
SKERDA, SANDRAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2015
STOCKER, KATALINIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2024
HEALTHPRO PARENT HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/01/2014
INTELYCARE INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2020
TWOMAGNETS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2020
ELBADAWY, EMADIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2018

CMS files one row per role, so the 40 rows in the source record cover these 32 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$25.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+7.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.8M
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 4%Medicare 2%Other / private 94%

This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$223per resident / day
operating cost
$6,792per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$241per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OH

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Ohio
$9,186/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,389/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,103/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365759. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-06, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next