66731 Old Twenty-One Road, Cambridge, OH 43725 · Guernsey County · (740) 432-7717
50 certified beds, about 47 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1997
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366128 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 7, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 27 health citations since August 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.64 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.87 of those hours.
39.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Altercare, an affiliated group of 22 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, hospital record review, Self-Reported Incident (SRI) review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to timely identify and address a resident's change in condition following a mechanical lift transfer. This affected one resident (#55) of three residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 47. Actual harm occurred on 11/16/25 when Resident #55, who was severely cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for activities of daily living, slammed her body down into a sit-to-stand (mechanical lift) device on her right side and back due to an episode of increased weakness. The facility staff failed to notify the resident's medical provider of the change in condition including the episode of weakness and slamming of the right side of her body and back down into the sit-to-stand device. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, hospital record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer program to timely identify, treat and/or prevent a decline of pressure ulcers. This affected two residents (Resident #42 and #07) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Actual Harm occurred on 12/06/25 when Resident #42, who had been identified at risk for pressure ulcer development and required maximum staff assistance for bed mobility, returned from the hospital with a red and blanchable area to his (unidentified) buttock without evidence of a comprehensive skin assessment or implementation of pressure relieving interventions or wound treatment to prevent decline in the pressure ulcer. On 12/11/25, a skin assessment identified a new Stage III (Full thickness tissue loss. [...]
Inspectors wroteReview of the medical record, review of the facility policy, and interview with staff the facility failed to ensure as needed psychotropic medications were not used beyond 14 days without rationale. This affected two residents (#1, #51) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review, facility investigation review, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation following an allegation of abuse. This affected one (#55) of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 47.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a person-centered, comprehensive care plan, developed and implemented to meet the preferences and goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs. This affected two residents (#37, #48) of five residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 47.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored. This affected one resident (#27) of one resident reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 47.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, self reported incident review, and interview the facility failed to ensure the incident log was complete and accurate for a resident fall and failed to ensure a resident's medical record was complete. This affected one resident (#55) of two residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 47.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the job descriptions, review of the employee handbook, review of a self-reported incident investigation, review of timed stamped and dated photographs, review of the facility assessment, review of time sheets, interviews, policy review, and review of the Nurse Practice Act, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided within acceptable standards of quality when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #133 was observed pre-pouring resident medications and also observed sleeping multiple times throughout the shift. This had the potential to affect the residents residing on the Rodeo Unit where LPN #133 was working. The facility census was 48.1. Review of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #133's timecard dated 11/06/25 and 11/07/24 revealed LPN #133 clocked in at 11:54 P.M. on 11/06/25 and clocked out at 6:12 P.M. on 11/07/24. The LPN worked 17.75 hours. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received timely pain management. This affected one (Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for pain management. The census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity for Resident #100. This affected one resident (#100) of three sampled residents. The facility census was 49.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, BIPA (Benefits Improvement and Protection Act) Report review, daily census report review, and interview, the facility failed to post accurate nurse staffing information as required. This had the potential to affect all 49 residents residing within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) document accurately reflected medications and a psychiatric hospitalization. This affected one (Resident #37) of four residents reviewed for PASRR documents. The census was 46. Findings Include: Medical record review revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, delusional disorder, dementia with psychotic disturbance, and panic disorder. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 07/19/24, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and received an anti-anxiety medication. Review of Resident #37's PASRR document, dated 08/26/24, revealed under Section E, no anti-anxiety medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed weekly and documented as administered in the medical record. This affected one (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for supplemental oxygen use. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of a meal ticket, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was consistent communication between the facility and the dialysis center regarding a resident's hemodialysis treatments. They also failed to ensure the medical record accurately reflected the resident's current order for a fluid restriction and staff were knowledgeable about the resident's need for a fluid restriction as ordered for end stage renal disease. This affected one (Resident #19) of one resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow appropriate transmission based precautions for a resident on contact precautions. The affected one (Resident #253) of two residents identified on transmission based precautions. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation , review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure that private identifiable medical information for Resident #10 was not visible on the computer screen and left unattended by staff. This affected one resident ( Resident #40) of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 49.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the medical record and interview with staff the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended on top of the medication cart and failed to ensure the medication cart was locked while unattended. This had the potential to affect three residents ( Resident #33, #41, and #43) out of 21 who were cognitively impaired and independently mobile on the Rodeo Unit. The facility census was 49.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview with staff, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure staff preformed proper hand hygiene during medication administration. This affected two resident ( Resident #34 and #45) out of four observed for medication administration. The facility census was 49.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of a facility investigation, review of operating instructions of an enteral feeding pump, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received an enteral tube feeding at the rate ordered by the physician and staff adequately monitored the flow rate of the enteral feeding when assessing the resident for complications associated with his peg tube. This affected one resident (#15) of one resident reviewed for enteral tube feedings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility except Residents #29 and #93 who did not receive nutrition from the kitchen. The facility census was 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) and surfaces were sanitized when leaving isolation rooms, isolation linens and personals were washed in a sanitary manner, and a urinary collection bag was maintained off the floor. This affected Residents #17, #25, #28, #34, and #92. This had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised to reflect new fall prevention interventions added after falls occurred. This affected two (Resident #5 and #28) of four residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely intervention for constipation and assessment and treatment orders for a leg wound. This affected three (Resident's #16, #19 and #28) of 15 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcers were adequately assessed to identify the correct staging of the pressure ulcer, failed to ensure a laboratory test and supplements recommended by the wound physician were implemented for wound healing, and a resident identified as being at risk for pressure ulcers had appropriate skin prevention interventions in place to help reduce the risk of pressure ulcers from developing. This affected two (Resident #35 and #93) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to have fall interventions in place. This affected three residents (#5, #10 and #28) of four residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain laboratory testing as ordered to monitor medication use. This affected two Residents (#19 and #31) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure flu and pneumococcal vaccinations were offered. This affected one resident (Resident #19) of five residents reviewed for vaccines.
7 fire safety citations on file: 2 on January 7, 2026, 2 on September 5, 2024, 3 on August 11, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.64 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.87 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.18 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.73 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.1% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.65 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.82 on weekdays and 3.18 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.44 in April to June 2025 to 3.64 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.87 | 3.82 | 3.18 | 0.7% | 0 of 90 | 47 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.57 | 0.76 | 3.77 | 3.08 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 47 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.73 | 3.59 | 3.02 | 1.9% | 0 of 92 | 48 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.44 | 0.72 | 3.65 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 48 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.8 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.5 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Altercare Cambridge Inc.'s Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 121 eligible stays.
15.5% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 134 eligible stays.
6.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 78 eligible stays.
72.9% this home
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 48 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 82 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 82 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 46 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: ALTERCARE CAMBRIDGE INC. CMS links this home to Altercare, a group of 22 nursing homes averaging 3.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsg Nursing Centers, Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2018 |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Andrew M Schroer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2018 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Gerald F Schroer Jr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2018 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Matthew Schroer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2018 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Margaret S Goodman | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2018 | |
| Susanne Schroer Dynasty Trust U/a | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2018 | |
| The Schroer Group, Inc. | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2018 | |
| Mock, Douglas | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/20/2021 | |
| Film, George | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Goodman, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Johnson, Kathy | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Mock, Douglas | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/20/2021 | |
| Nutter, Orian | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/2020 | |
| Altercare of Ohio, Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2018 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.