4200 Harrington Drive, Zanesville, OH 43701 · Muskingum County · (740) 452-4351
99 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2015
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366429 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 1, 2025, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 46 health citations since January 2022, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $198,156 in the last three years; the largest was $163,836, and the latest is dated December 10, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.65 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.63 of those hours.
51.3% 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn in Resident #6's room during meal delivery. This had the potential to affect the remaining 26 residents who resided on the 300-hall. (Resident #2, #5, #9, #12, #20, #21, #29, #31, #35, #39, #43, #44, #45, #47, #48, #49, #54, #59, #62, #63, #65, #67, #70, #76, #184 and #185). The facility census was 82. Findings Include: Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/04/25 with diagnoses including infection following a procedure, acquired absence of right leg above knee, muscle weakness, and Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infection (MRSA) (a bacterial infection resistant to many antibiotics that is spread by skin to skin contact or contact with contaminated surfaces). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to follow insulin administration and blood glucose monitoring per physician orders. This affected one resident (Resident #79) of three residents reviewed for insulin use. The facility census was 82. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #79 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25. Diagnosis included type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and presence of aortocoronary bypass graft. Review of orders for March 2025 revealed Lantus (long acting insulin) insulin 42 units subcutaneous once a day started on 03/03/25, Insulin Lispro seven units three times a day before meals and per sliding scale dated 03/03/25. Review of the Minimum data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed intact cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of a resident communication log, review of visiting healthcare service orders, review of a customer alert form, hospital notes, policy review, medication instructions, and death certificate, and interview with family and facility staff the facility failed to ensure comprehensive monitoring and timely identification of a change in condition for Resident #94, who was incontinent of bladder with a diagnosis of Stage 3 chronic kidney disease. In addition, the facility failed to ensure Resident #94 received timely, necessary and appropriate treatment and services of a urinary tract infection (UTI). This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy, actual harm, and subsequent death beginning on [DATE] when Resident #94's daughter requested a urinalysis to be performed due to changes in the resident's cognition that was not completed by the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a resident received laboratory services per physician orders. This affected one resident (#65) of four residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review, national library glove use review guidance and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter was provided appropriate care and services. This affected one resident (#2) of three residents reviewed for indwelling catheter use. The facility identified six residents with indwelling urinary catheters. The census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #74 and #87 were provided an individualized and comprehensive pain management program to adequately control pain. This affected two residents (#74 and #87) of three residents reviewed for pain management. The census was 94. Actual Harm occurred on [DATE] when Resident #87, who had an order for scheduled narcotic pain medication twice a day, was observed lying in bed, turning his head side to side, moaning and he verbalized his pain was a 10 out of 10 (a 0-10 pain scale is a way to measure pain intensity, where 0 represents no pain and 10 represents the worst possible pain imagined). The resident reported he had not received his scheduled pain medication and due to not receiving the medication timely, his pain level rating was severe.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, controlled drug receipt review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were documented accurately to account for all controlled drugs. This affected two residents (#74, #87) of three residents reviewed for pain management. The census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to maintain care and services for pressure ulcers. This affected one (#38) resident observed for a pressure ulcer dressing change. The facility identified five residents with pressure ulcers. The census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review, manufacturer guideline review and interview, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered. This affected three (#30, #64 and #270) of three residents observed for medication administration with five errors out of 33 opportunities resulting in an error rate of 15.15%. The census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the medical record and interview with staff the facility failed to ensure the air mattress for Resident #26 was set at the proper setting for her weight and the treatment for Resident #55 was completed as ordered. This affected two residents ( #26 and #55) of four residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was known to have multiple dislodgements of his Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (Peg) tube, had an abdominal binder in place as ordered to prevent any accidental dislodgements. This affected one resident (#4) of three residents reviewed for feeding tubes.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the appropriate eating equipment and utensils as ordered during a meal to aid the resident in being able to feed himself. This affected one resident (#4) of three residents observed for eating/ feeding assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on self-reported incident review, fire drill review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to submit a self-reported incident (SRI) for possible neglect after staff were observed sleeping on the night shift. This affected 27 residents (#65, #66, #67, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #73, #74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #86, #87, #88, #89, #90, #230) residing on Unit 3. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices during incontinence care and failed to ensure staff wore face masks during a COVID-19 outbreak. This affected one resident (#70) of two residents observed for incontinence care and had the potential to affect 31 residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30 and #31) residing on Unit 1 during the COVID-19 outbreak. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of hospital discharge orders, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure special respiratory equipment was available for resident use. This affected one resident (#94) of four residents reviewed for admission rights. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were followed during pressure ulcer wound care. This affected one resident (#23) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the facility meal spreadsheet, interview with staff and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure the residents were served the proper portion size of meat. This had potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen except for nine residents (Resident #1, #5, #14, #51, #61, #80, #81, #86 and #88) the facility had identified as nothing by mouth, mechanical soft or pureed diets. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI), interview with staff, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of medication for Resident #66 by facility staff. This affected one resident ( Resident #66) of three reviewed for medications. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure a wound vacuum (vac) for Resident #58 was changed as ordered, and medications were administered in a timely manner for Resident #96. This affected one resident ( Resident #58) of three reviewed for wounds and one resident ( Resident #96) of three reviewed for medications. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, review of a fall investigation, review of hospital records, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely identification of changes in resident condition status post fall. Actual Harm occurred on 01/25/24 at 12:15 A.M. when Resident #288, who had confusion/ dementia and was admitted status-post left hip replacement sustained an unwitnessed fall in her bathroom/shower room with complaints of pain and signs of injury to the right hip that were not timely addressed. Following the fall, facility staff failed to complete a timely and appropriate assessment of the resident and failed to implement effective interventions. The resident was transported to the emergency room (per family request) on 01/24/25 at 2:58 P.M. due to leg pain and deformity. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the infection control logs the facility failed to maintain a comprehensive infection control log to include antibiotic use. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to obtain written notice before relocating Resident #27 to a different room. This affected one resident (Resident #27) of one residents reviewed for room transfers. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to investigate a fall with injury and failed to complete neurological assessments after a fall with head injuries. This affected two residents (Resident #39 and #278) of four residents reviewed for falls. The census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure pain was addressed post-fall and pain assessments were completed post-fall per policy. This affected one resident (Resident #19) of four residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records. This affected one resident (Resident #13) of one residents reviewed for fluid restrictions. The census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, policy review and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) immunization guidance the facility failed to offer timely Covid-19 vaccine information and the option to get updated Covid-19 vaccines. This affected three (Resident #27, Resident #32, and Resident #77) of five residents reviewed for Covid-19 Vaccinations. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on payroll based journal review, email correspondence review, and interview, the facility failed to timely submit federally required staffing information to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This had the potential to affect all 93 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity with use of an indwelling urinary catheter. This affected one resident (#54) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility identified four residents with indwelling catheters. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to their call lights. This affected two residents (#23, #81) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident information remained confidential. This affected one resident (#90) of 93 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide assistance as needed with dining. This affected two residents (#68, #81) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place and interventions were immediately implemented to maintain resident safety after a fall. This affected one resident (#81) of three residents reviewed for accidents/incidents. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate incontinence care to dependent residents. This affected one resident (#8) of three residents reviewed for urinary incontinence. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate. This affected one resident (#81) of three residents reviewed for incidents and one resident(#67) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure food preparation and serving areas were clean and sanitary. This had the potential to affect 79 of 79 residents who received meal trays from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#10) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure a summary of the initial (baseline) care plan was provided to each resident and/or their representative at the time of admission. This affected five residents (#10, #11, #50, #75 and #226) of 18 sampled residents reviewed for baseline care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure admission/quarterly care planning conferences were held on behalf of the residents with all required disciplines in attendance. This affected four residents (#18, #64, #70 and #226) of four sampled residents reviewed for care plans conferences
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #15, Resident #52 and Resident #56 were provided the necessary care and services to maintain/promote optimal nutrition and the ability to eat and failed to ensure Resident #18 received the necessary care and services to maintain optimal oral hygiene. This affected four residents (#15, #18, #52 and #56) of seven residents review for activities of daily living (ADL) care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents ordered a low concentrated sweets diet were provided the diet/dessert as ordered during the lunch meal on 01/12/22. This affected 26 residents (22, #40, #8, #400, #11, #14, #26, #38, #7, #36, #18, #228, #23, #20, #42, #9, #29, #1, #48, #41, #71, #229, #53, #47, #25, and #376) of 26 residents who had an order for a low concentrated sweets diet. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wrote3. On 01/11/22 at 9:00 A.M. STNA #47 was observed in Resident #64's room. Resident #64 was in contact/ droplet isolation precautions as evidenced by signs on the resident's door indicating such and a personal protective equipment (PPE) cart outside of his room. STNA #47 was observed to be standing next to the bed where Resident #64 was lying in. STNA #47 was within a few feet of the resident and was observed to be taking the resident's meal order. STNA #47 placed the select menu on the resident's bedside table as he recorded the resident's responses for what he wanted to eat for an upcoming meal. STNA #47 was not noted to be wearing a gown or gloves when in the resident's room. The STNA was observed wearing goggles and an N95 mask as the facility staff were wearing throughout the building as they had a Covid-19 outbreak occurring. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #45's urinary catheter drainage bag was covered to promote the resident's dignity. This affected one resident (#45) of five residents identified to have indwelling urinary (Foley) catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #55, who was receiving anticoagulant medication was monitored for bruising and also failed to monitor/ record Resident #70's gastric residual amounts emptied from a gastrostomy tube as ordered by the physician. This affected one resident (#55) of one resident reviewed for anticoagulant medication side effects and one resident (#70) of one resident reviewed for tube feedings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review, review of a Nursing Assistant Candidate handbook and interview the facility failed to provide adequate and complete perineal care for Resident #67 to prevent the risk of infection. The facility also failed to ensure Resident #52 was assessed timely for the removal of an indwelling urinary catheter and failed to ensure proper placement of the resident's catheter to prevent contamination/infection. This affected one resident (#67) of one resident observed for perineal care and one resident (#52) of one resident reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #56, who had a history of weight loss received the appropriate diet as ordered and assistance with meals to meet her nutritional needs and failed to ensure dietary recommendations to address Resident #45's significant weight loss were followed up timely. This affected two residents (#45 and #56) of six residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #18's oxygen tubing was changed weekly as per facility policy. This affected one resident (#18) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an accurate diagnosis and monitoring of a psychoactive (benzodiazepine) medication for Resident #73. This affected one resident (#73) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
5 fire safety citations on file: 2 on May 1, 2025, 1 on February 5, 2024, 2 on January 20, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 10, 2024 | Fine | $163,836 |
| December 10, 2024 | Payment Denial | 45 days from February 14, 2025 |
| February 5, 2024 | Fine | $34,320 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 3.65 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.24 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.34 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.68 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.3% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 45.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.55 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 3.81 on weekdays and 3.24 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.61 in April to June 2025 to 3.65 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 | 3.65 | 0.63 | 3.81 | 3.24 | 7.1% | 0 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.76 | 0.58 | 3.86 | 3.51 | 11.0% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.57 | 0.63 | 3.71 | 3.21 | 14.1% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.61 | 0.68 | 3.75 | 3.26 | 9.5% | 0 of 91 | 87 |
| 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 | 2.1 | 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 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.2 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.8 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Altercare Zanesville Inc.'s Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (57.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.9% 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. 111 eligible stays.
11.0% this home
No different from 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. 141 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. 64 eligible stays.
52.3% 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. 44 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. 70 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. 70 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 12 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 ZANESVILLE 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% | 01/01/2003 |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Andrew M Schroer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Gerald F Schroer Jr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Matthew Schroer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Margaret S Goodman | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Susanne Schroer Dynasty Trust U/a | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2018 | |
| The Schroer Group, Inc. | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2003 | |
| Mock, Douglas | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/20/2021 | |
| Mock, Douglas | Corporate director | 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 | 02/01/2018 |
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.