1645 Maplewood Dr, Streetsboro, OH 44241 · Portage County · (330) 626-3031
88 certified beds, about 62 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365718 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 3, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since May 2022, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,842 in the last three years; the largest was $10,842, and the latest is dated November 26, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.00 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.78 of those hours.
65.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Arbors at Ohio, an affiliated group of 16 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 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of fire department and hospital records, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #59's physician orders were followed and care planned interventions were implemented to ensure comprehensive monitoring and evaluation was provided for Resident #59, who had an implanted cardiac pacemaker to prevent complications. An additional example was the facility failed to ensure Resident #22's physician orders were followed and care planned interventions implemented to timely treat a right lateral calf wound. This affected two resident's (#22 and #59) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility identified four residents with pacemakers residing in the facility. Actual Harm occurred on [DATE] at 5:30 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of a fire department transportation reports, review of hospital After Visit Summaries, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided adequate monitoring and/or care per physician order to timely identify and seek interventions for complications of the residents urinary status including symptoms of a urinary tract infection. This affected two residents (#59 and #70) of three reviewed for urinary tract infections. The facility census was 55. Actual Harm occurred on 01/20/26 when Resident #70 began showing signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI). However, the resident was not appropriately evaluated or monitored after showing these symptoms and began showing a change in condition on 01/22/26 when his right arm began to shake. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure a designated Infection Preventionist provided oversight, monitoring and management of all components of the Infection Prevention and Control Program. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents in the facility. Findings Include: Review of immunization records for Resident #5, #16, #24, #40 and #61 revealed concerns with an unidentified staff member completing vaccination education and consent forms with the residents and/or responsible parties as followed: Review of Resident #5's immunization consent forms for Covid-19, influenza and pneumococcal vaccine's revealed education and all three consents were provided to the resident's daughter on 02/05/26 and the staff member obtaining verbal consent was not identified on the forms. There was no witness signature on the forms. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #17, #33, #59, #66, #67 and #70's physician orders were followed for medication administration. This affected six residents (Resident's #17, #33, #59, #66, #67 and #70) out of six reviewed for medication administration and had the potential to affect all twelve residents residing on the 400 nursing unit. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident room refrigerators were monitored, cleaned and outdated food items were disposed of appropriately. This affected five residents (#18, #39, #45, #55, and #59) of six residents whose room refrigerators were observed. The facility identified 13 residents (#1, #15, #18, #28, #35, #38, #39, #43, #45, #48, #55, #59 and #60) who had in-room refrigerators. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program. This affected 21 (#70, #25, #27, #50, #59, #15, #18, #22, #67, #49, #61, #19, #3, #4, #42, #16, #1, #43, #51, #34 and #7) residents of 55 residents in the facility with the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 55. Findings Include:Review of the infection surveillance logs for November 2025 through January 2026 revealed the following residents did not meet McGreers criteria for antibiotic use and there was no documentation regarding what the facility did to find out why the criteria was not met: Resident #70 was diagnosed with a wound infection on 11/06/25 that was a Healthcare-Associated Infection and did not meet the criteria for antibiotic use. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, review of the facility self-reported incidents (SRIs) facility policy review, the facility did not ensure a thorough investigation was completed for Resident #7 for an allegation of misappropriation and Resident #67 for an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse. This affected two resident (#7 and #67) of the four residents reviewed for abuse. The census in the facility was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and job description review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #5 received a complete dietary assessment. This affected one resident (#5) of three residents reviewed for nutritional assessments. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was completed for one resident (#24) of 32 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure staff did not assist Resident #5 with exiting the secured dementia unit without verifying he was a resident. In addition, the facility failed to ensure safe smoking interventions were in place for Resident #55 during an observed smoking activity. This affected two residents (Resident #5 and #55) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility identified eight residents (Resident #14, #38, #42, #44, #49, #51, #53, and #55) who smoked. The facility census was 55. Findings Include: 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, gastric reflux, high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, and heart disease. The resident was admitted to the secured dementia unit. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, incident review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient supervision was maintained to prevent Resident #5 from exiting the secured dementia unit. This affected one resident (#5) of two residents reviewed for dementia care. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records, interview, review of pharmacy recommendations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were acknowledged and addressed timely for two residents (Residents #4 and #24) out of five reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility also failed to monitor one resident (Resident #61) of two residents reviewed for blood glucose levels. The facility census was 55. Findings Include:1. Review of medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 07/02/25. Diagnoses included but were not limited to Alzheimer's dementia, dementia with behaviors, type two diabetes mellitus, oppositional defiant disorder and depression. Review of the 01/08/26 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 for Resident #24 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility investigation, the facility failed to ensure nursing documentation was accurate and contained information pertinent to resident care. This affected one resident, (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 55. Findings Include:Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, gastric reflux, high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, and heart disease. The resident was admitted to the secured dementia unit. Review of the physician orders revealed no order for the resident to reside on the secured dementia unit. Review of the 12/16/25 nursing admission assessment under Risk of Elopement/Wandering assessment revealed the resident was not cognitively impaired, with poor decision making skills. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy the facility failed to collaborate care with hospice, complete a comprehensive assessment and implement care planned interventions for Resident #59 who experienced a change of condition. This affected one resident (Resident #59) out of three residents reviewed for hospice services. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on interview, record review and review of Self-Reported Incident (SRI) #261109, the facility failed to treat Resident #19 with respect and dignity. This affected one (Resident #19) of four residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected two (Residents #6 and #67) of 14 residents reviewed for environment and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on interview, record review, review of Self-Reported Incident (SRI) #261204, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect Resident #3 from verbal abuse by a staff member. This affected one (Resident #3) of four residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, misappropriation and exploitation. The facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, photographs of meals & tray ticket review, and interview, the facility failed to follow Resident #90's meal preferences. This affected one resident (Resident #90) of four residents reviewed for preferences. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interview the facility failed to ensure the Facility Assessment was completed accurately and thoroughly. This had the potential to affect all 67 residents. Findings Include: Review of the Facility Assessment revealed it was dated 01/2024 through 12/2024. The assessment did not have the names of the Administrator, Director of Nursing or Medical Director in the lines indicated nor was it marked as being reviewed. There was no indication of the type and number of staff needed to provide care and services. Interview on 02/05/25 at 12:30 P.M. with Administrator confirmed the Facility Assessment was not thorough and accurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to secure sharp objects were disposed of properly. This had the potential to affect six residents (#17, #32, #53, #119, #121 and #122) identified as being ambulatory and residing on the 600 unit. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to report injuries of unknown origin to the state agency within the required time frame. This affected one resident (Resident #36) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to investigate injuries of unknown origin to the state agency within the required time frame. This affected one resident (Resident #36) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide therapeutic activities to meet the needs and preferences of the resident population. This affected three Residents (#2, #10, and #47) of three residents investigated for activities. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe clean refrigerator for resident use. This affected one resident (#53) of 16 residents identified as having personal refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care utilizing proper personal protective equipment to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were followed. This affected one resident (#118) of 17 residents identified as being on enhanced barrier precautions. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, medical record review, review of facility video surveillance, review of a local police report, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for Resident #03, who was assessed to be high risk for elopement, had a history of exit seeking behavior, resided on the secured memory care unit and had a wander guard (wearable device to help keep residents at risk of wandering safe) to prevent elopement. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious harm, injury and/or death on 11/02/24 at 12:44 P.M. when Resident #03 followed dietary staff through the secured memory care door, traveled through the facility and eloped through the front door without staff knowledge. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the Certification and Licensure System (CALS), staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report incidents of elopement to the State Agency. This affected two residents (#03 and #18) of four residents reviewed for neglect. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #42 consistently recieved a divided plate with all meals as requested. The affected one (Resident #42) of three residents reviewed for resident preferences. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure care planned and physician ordered protective barrier cream was applied after incontinence care. This affected two (#43 and #53) of three residents observed for incontinence care. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide dental services as requested. The affected one (Resident #42) of three residents reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, payroll-based journal review, and interviews with staff and residents the facility failed to have sufficient staffing to meet the care needs of all residents. This affected six residents (#39, #25, #36, #5, #43, #8) of 22 residents reviewed for care concerns and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents (#45, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56 and #57) residing on the secured unit as well as Resident #43 who used the shower on the secured unit. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, review of an audio video recording, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Residents #8 and #65 were treated in a dignified manner. This affected two residents (#8 and #65) of 22 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 66. 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 03/03/20. Diagnoses included anemia, hypothyroidism, overactive bladder, and adult failure to thrive. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was moderately cognitively impaired. She required supervision for eating, assistance of one person bathing, toileting and dressing, and assistance of two people for transfers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and review of video footage, the facility failed to ensure choices that were significant to Resident #65 related to care were honored per resident and resident family request. This affected one resident (Resident #65) of 22 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #66's representative was notified of a significant change in condition. This affected one resident (#66) of three residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, review of the Ohio Department of Health's Gateway, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to implement their policy for abuse regarding an allegation of staff-to-resident resident abuse for Resident #65. This affected one resident (#65) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, review of the Ohio Department of Health's Gateway, and facility policy review the facility failed to report an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse involving Resident #65 within the required time frame to the state agency. This affected one resident (#65) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse involving Resident #65. This affected one resident (#65) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Residents #5 and #43 received showers consistently. This affected two residents (#5 and #43) of four residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure activities were offered to meet Residents #30, #4, and #14's preferences. This affected three residents (#30, #4, and #14) of three residents reviewed for activities and had the potential to affect all 66 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure call lights were answered in a timely fashion. This affected two residents (#25 and #36) of three residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 66. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 11/04/08. Diagnoses included heart failure, morbid obesity, depression, and bladder dysfunction. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was cognitively intact. She required substantial or maximum assistance with toileting and showering and set-up help for eating, personal hygiene, and oral hygiene. Review of the care plan dated 02/23/24 revealed Resident #25 had a self-care deficit related to impaired mobility, morbid obesity, and difficulty walking. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care was provided for Residents #8 and #43. This affected two residents (#8 and #43) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, medical record review, and observation of a video recording, the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory treatment to Resident #65. This affected one resident (#65) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care and services. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to timely provide and obtain medications to meet Resident #66's needs. This affected one resident (#66) of six residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, policy review, and review of video footage, the facility failed to implement appropriate infection control measures to help prevent the development and/or transmission of infections. This affected one resident (#65) of four residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light in the bathroom was reset appropriately after use to ensure Resident #39 was able to activate the call light in the room. This affected one resident (#39) of three residents reviewed for call light functionality. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interviews with staff, review of the facility's fall investigation and facility policy and procedure the facility failed to prevent Resident #53's fall. This affected one out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 67. Actual Harm occurred on 06/25/23 when Hospitality Aide (HA) #75 was pushing Resident #53, who was dependent on staff for transfer, had impairment on one side of the upper body and impairment on both sides of the lower extremities and used a wheelchair for mobility outside in her wheelchair while talking on her phone. Resident #63's wheelchair slipped off the sidewalk, tipping the wheelchair and Resident #53 fell to the ground. Resident #53 sustained a fractured left humerus because of the fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to respond to Resident #68's and Resident #8's concerns in a timely manner. This affected two out of three residents reviewed for concerns. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and resident/staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #8 received assistance with incontinence care in a timely manner. This affected one out of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands to prevent possible cross contamination of germs during Resident #40's medication administration and Resident #27's incontinence care. This affected one out of five residents observed during medication administration and one out of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the secured memory unit in a clean, comfortable and homelike condition. This affected Resident #49 and Resident #50 and had the potential to affect all 17 residents (#1, #2, #5, #6, #10, #20, #28, #29, #32, #39, #42, #43, #44, #48, #49, #50 and #52) who resided on the secured memory unit. The facility had 52 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review and activity calendar review, the facility failed to provide individualized activity programs to meet the needs of residents residing on the secured memory care unit. This affected Resident's #1, #10, #42, #48 and #49 and had the potential to affect all 17 residents (#1, #2, #5, #6, #10, #20, #28, #29, #32, #39, #42, #43, #44, #48, #49, #50 and #52) who resided on the secured memory unit. The facility census was 52 residents.
12 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 3, 2026, 5 on February 6, 2025, 4 on May 26, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 26, 2024 | Fine | $10,842 |
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) | 4.00 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.40 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.20 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 65.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 76.9% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.57 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 4.24 on weekdays and 3.40 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.91 in April to June 2025 to 4.00 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 | 4.00 | 0.78 | 4.24 | 3.40 | 2.1% | 0 of 90 | 62 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.04 | 0.53 | 4.29 | 3.40 | 2.0% | 0 of 92 | 66 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.79 | 0.45 | 4.05 | 3.15 | 2.0% | 0 of 92 | 68 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.91 | 0.49 | 4.14 | 3.36 | 1.9% | 0 of 91 | 65 |
| 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 | 4.0 | 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 | 2.5 | 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 | 5.6 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Arbors at Streetsboro's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 23 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 29 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 12 eligible stays.
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: 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. 6 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: 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. 11 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: 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. 11 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. 6 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: STREETSBORO OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Arbors at Ohio, a group of 16 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ark Opco Group, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/01/2015 |
| B&y Healthcare S Corp | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2015 | |
| B&y Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2015 | |
| Cody Healthcare S Corp | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2015 | |
| Craig Flashner 2007 Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2015 | |
| Norcross, Robert | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2015 | |
| Rogers, Stacey | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2015 | |
| Kirk, Kristine | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/01/2016 | |
| Flashner, Craig | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2015 | |
| Perlstein, Yitzchok | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2015 | |
| Noble Healthcare Management, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2015 | |
| Prestige Administrative Services, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2016 | |
| Flashner, Craig | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2015 | |
| Perlstein, Yitzchok | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2015 |
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.