2565 Niles Vienna Rd, Niles, OH 44446 · Trumbull County · (330) 652-2053
120 certified beds, about 107 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1986
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365672 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 5, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since August 2019, 1 was 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 3.00 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.32 of those hours.
52.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Continuing Healthcare Solutions, an affiliated group of 12 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to revise Resident #7's care plan in response to new interventions to prevent resident to resident incidents. This affected one (Resident #7) of four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the resident received adequate supervision including maintaining a hazard free environment to prevent injury to Resident #30. This affected one resident (#30) out of three residents reviewed for accident hazards. The facility census was 101. Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 01/04/2010 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and diabetic neuropathy. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 had intact cognition. Resident #30 required dependent assistance with showers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews and review of the facility shower schedules, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled to Residents #23, #25, #31, and #53. This affected four (Residents #23, #25, #31, and #53) of seven residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to adequately control Resident #38's pain when his as needed pain medication was not administered timely on 05/31/25. This affected one (Resident #38) of three residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, review of facility investigation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #53 received the ordered food texture resulting in her choking and requiring the Heimlich maneuver. This affected one (Resident #53) out of three residents removed for modified food texture and had the potential to affect 18 additional (Residents #5, #13, #20, #26, #30, #43, #47, #48, #55, #56, #71, #76, #78, #82, #86, #95, #100, and #101) identified by the facility as requiring a modified diet texture. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment. This affected four residents (#13, #35, #74 and #257) of ten residents reviewed for environmental concerns and had the potential to affect all 106 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received showers per resident preference and shower schedule. This affected four residents (#73, #77, #80 and #87) of six residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a call light and overbed table within Resident #13's reach. This affected one resident (#13) of ten residents reviewed for environmental/call light concerns and had the potential to affect all 106 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide prescription eyeglasses for Resident #2 ass ordered by the physician. This affected one resident (#2) of two residents reviewed for vision and hearing. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to apply a palm guard as ordered for Resident #18. This affected one resident (#18) of one resident reviewed for splints. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's smoking policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3's smoking materials were secured by staff. This affected one resident (#3) of one resident reviewed for smoking. The facility identified ten residents (#3, #23, #72, #46, #87, #90, #83, #12, #53 and #51) as smokers. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were followed in the administration of medications through Resident #301's peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line. This affected one resident (#301) of one resident observed for intravenous medication administration. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment for all residents. This affected six Residents (#14, #18, #26, #37, #76 and #86) of 17 residents reviewed for physical environment and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to timely notify a family member of a medication change for Resident #108. This affected one resident (#108) of ten residents reviewed for family notification of a change. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to collaborate with pharmacy services to ensure a medication listed as a drug allergy was not dispensed and administered to Resident #108 until determined to be safe for Resident #108 to receive the medication. This affected one resident (Resident #108) of ten residents who were reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of photographs provided by Resident #27's fiancée/power of attorney (POA) and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program to prevent the development of pressure ulcers and timely identify new pressure ulcers, including timely incontinence care and turning and repositioning. This affected two residents (#27 and #109) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 106. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of photographs provided by Resident #27's fiancée/power of attorney (POA) and facility policy review revealed the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care. This affected four residents (#1, #27, #54, and #57) out of seven residents reviewed for incontinence care and had the potential to affect 76 residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, #12, #13, #15, #16, #17, #18, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #26, #27, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #42, #43, #45, #48, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #57, #59, #60, #62, #63, #66, #67, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #74, #75, #76, #78, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #87, #91, #94, #86, #97, #99, #100, #101, #102, #103, #107, and #108) identified by the facility that required assistance with incontinence care. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, facility assessment, review of photographs provided by Resident #27's fiancée/power of attorney (POA) and facility policy review, the facility failed to have adequate staffing to meet the needs of the residents. This affected four residents (#1, #54, #57, and #107) out of four residents reviewed on the 200 assignment (rooms 211 to 229) and one resident (#29) out of two residents reviewed for staffing in regard to prevention of pressure ulcers. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the prescriber. This affected three residents (#1, #27 and #86) out of three residents reviewed for medication administration and had the potential to affect all 106 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat Resident #86 with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#86) and had the potential to affect all 106 residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #27's medical records were accurate and did not contain false information. This affected one resident (#27) out of 12 medical records reviewed for accuracy of medical record. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of video recordings provided by Resident #27's fiancée/power of attorney (POA), review of center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) memorandum QSO-24-08-NH and facility policy review, the facility did not ensure proper infection control measures were followed including during wound care and donning enhanced barriers precautions (EBP) during care for Resident #27. This affected one resident (#27) out of three residents reviewed for wound care and EBP. This had the potential to affect seven additional residents identified by the facility with wounds (#22, #62, #70, #80, #88, #102, and #109) and 27 residents (#1, #5, #9, #10, #16, #18, #20, #23, #39, #42, #48, #52, #53, #67, #69, #78, #80, #81, #84, #86, #87, #93, #97, #100, #101, #102, and #107) identified by the facility on EBP. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide pre-procedure preparation for Resident #49 resulting in a delay in a procedure. This affected one resident (#49) of six residents reviewed for appointments. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident representative interview, resident interview, staff interview, observation, review of the facility assessment, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain sufficient levels of nursing staff services to provide activities of daily living (ADL) assistance to residents according to their plan of care. This affected six (Residents #2, #24, #54, #61, #62, and #70) and had the potential to affect all 108 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, shower schedule review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents, who were dependent and/or required staff assistance for activities of daily living care, received timely and adequate assistance with showers and/or incontinence care, per the residents' plan of care and/or resident preference. This affected eight residents (#2, #24, #54, #61, #62, #70, #72, and #111) of 16 residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #61 and Resident #70 had call lights in reach at all times for reasonable accomodation of needs. This affected two residents (Resident #61, and #70) of five residents reviewed for resident right to reasonable accomodation of needs. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #111, who had an indwelling urinary (Foley) catheter was provided care (including the administration of an antibiotic) as directed by the resident's urologist for a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract infection. This affected one resident (#111) of 16 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain a medication administration error rate of less than five percent (%). The facility medication error rate was calculated to be 6.06% and included two errors of 33 opportunities. This affected one resident (#107) of three residents observed during the medication administration. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure posted staffing information was updated daily as required. This had the potential to affect all 108 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure pain medication was ordered and was timely available for administration for Resident #26. This affected one resident (#26) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure timely and appropriate care of non-pressure skin conditions. This affected one resident (Resident #35) of two residents reviewed for non-pressure skin areas. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure tube feedings were labeled and dated per standard of nursing practice. This affected two residents (Resident's #36 and #73) of five reviewed for tube feeding. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement/maintain proper infection control practices related to urinary catheter care for Resident #30, related to care of an intravenous site for Resident #5 and related to meal delivery for Resident #9 and #19. This affected one of one resident reviewed for urinary catheters, one of resident reviewed for intravenous site care and two of three residents observed receiving meal trays on the 100 hall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure respect and dignity was maintained for Residents #109 and #268. This affected two residents out of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were in reach for Residents #63 and #89. This affected two of 109 residents observed at the facility during the initial screening portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain the environment in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected three residents (Residents #6, #7, and #268) of 109 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was coded accurately for falls with injury for Residents #39. This affected one of 28 residents reviewed for assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop an individualized and person-centered care plan for Resident #36 related to pain control and Resident #113 related to activities. This affected two of 28 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify/invite Resident #41's representative for care conferences and failed to document care conferences in the clinical record and failed to revise and update the care plan for Resident #30. This affected two of 28 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oral care was completed for Resident #88, who received nothing to eat or drink by mouth. This affected one resident of one resident reviewed for oral care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide tracheostomy care to Resident #41 following appropriate infection control practices. This affected one of one resident reviewed for tracheostomy care.
10 fire safety citations on file: 3 on May 5, 2025, 3 on August 18, 2022, 4 on August 28, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 28, 2025 | Payment Denial | 13 days from February 22, 2025 |
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) | 3.00 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.32 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.74 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.56 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.12 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.25 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 3.11 on weekdays and 2.74 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.01 in April to June 2025 to 3.00 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 | 3.00 | 0.32 | 3.11 | 2.74 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 107 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.05 | 0.36 | 3.15 | 2.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 99 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.09 | 0.40 | 3.19 | 2.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.01 | 0.39 | 3.09 | 2.79 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 107 |
| 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 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 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 | 1.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.0 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.8 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Hills Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.7% 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.
10.2% 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. 114 eligible stays.
7.6% 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. 82 eligible stays.
57.5% 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. 40 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. 66 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. 66 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. 24 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: NILES SKILLED NURSING LLC. CMS links this home to Continuing Healthcare Solutions, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bunner, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Mallett, Christopher | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Parsons, Benjamin | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Sprenger, Mark | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Sprenger, Timothy | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Hughey, Tracy | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2026 | |
| Kauffman, Kevin | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Kauffman, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Hughey, Tracy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/15/2013 | |
| Kauffman, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2024 |
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.