9730 Valley View Road, Macedonia, OH 44056 · Summit County · (330) 748-8800
98 certified beds, about 85 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2017
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366454 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 27, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since November 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $23,140 in the last three years; the largest was $23,140, and the latest is dated February 27, 2025.
CMS links it to Progressive Quality Care, an affiliated group of 11 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement and follow transmissions based precautions (TBP) and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) as required. This affected three residents (Residents #5, #73 and #195) of five reviewed for TBP. The facility identified four residents (Residents #52, #60, #64 and #72) on droplet TBP and 14 residents (Residents #2, #3, #5, #6, #12, #14, #30, #39, #41, #46, #56, #69, #80 and #89) on EBP. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to maintain documentation the COVID-19 vaccine was offered to residents and residents were provided education regarding the benefits and risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine annually. This affected four Residents (Residents #1, #31 #42 and #76) of five reviewed for immunizations. The census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for Residents #6 and #8. This affected two residents (#6 and #8) of five observed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain resident rooms in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected one (Resident #41) of two residents reviewed for enteral feedings. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed as required and/or accurate. This affected two (Resident #79 and Resident #197) of 27 residents reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services for incontinence care, oral hygiene, and feeding assistance. This affected three (Residents #6, #56 and #59) out of four residents reviewed for ADL assistance. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews the facility failed to ensure Vancomycin (antibiotic) levels were monitored. This had the potential to affect one (Resident #195) of one resident reviewed for Vancomycin administration. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received recommended ancillary services. This affected one resident (Resident #47) of three reviewed for vision and hearing. The census was 88 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #15's enteral feeding was delivered per the physician's orders. This affected one (Resident #15) of one resident reviewed for enteral feedings. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional. This had the potential to affect all 88 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and observation the facility failed to ensure safety measures were in place to prevent a fall. This affected one resident (#107) of three residents (#5, #31 and #197) reviewed for falls. The census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of a facility self-reported incident and investigation, personnel file review, facility policy review, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid guidance and interview, the facility failed to ensure an employee (Laundry Aide #201) did not engage in an inappropriate relationship with Resident #91 which had the potential to be considered an abuse of power and resulted in an allegation of staff to resident sexual abuse reported by the resident. This affected one resident (#91) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide timely and necessary care/treatment for Resident #100 and Resident #102 following identified changes in condition. Actual Harm occurred beginning on 10/09/24 when Resident #100, who was severely cognitively impaired was noted by direct care staff (Certified Nursing Assistant 3249) to be favoring her right side, had bruising noted and wasn't right without evidence a licensed nurse assessed the resident or provided necessary intervention. On 10/11/24 licensed staff documented Resident #100 was sitting awkwardly in her chair and guarding her upper right side thigh area. Between 10/11/24 and 10/14/24 the resident exhibited signs of increased pain (facial grimacing and guarding of the leg) with an inability to obtain an x-ray of the area (due to positioning issues). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #62 received quarterly care conferences. This affected one resident (Resident #62) out of three residents reviewed for care plan conferences. Census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with staff the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan for Resident #95 included hearing impairment and need for sign language as her primary means of communication with the facility. This affected one resident ( Resident #95) of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure the facial hairs on dependent Resident #48 were removed. This affected one resident ( Resident #48) of three residents reviewed who were dependent for care and services. The facility census was 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was treated with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#1) of three residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 86. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 09/18/23. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, type two diabetes mellitus, and injury to sacral spinal cord. The resident was cognitively intact. Interview on 02/07/24 at 1:30 P.M. with Resident #1 revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #220 spoke to him in a disrespectful manner a few weeks prior. He stated he put his call light on, and when STNA #220 answered it, she responded, Seriously, that's what you called me in here for? then shut the door loudly after she completed the task. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #53 was free from verbal abuse. This finding affected one (Resident #53) of three residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of verbal abuse. This finding affected one (Resident #53) of three residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% (percent). A total of 34 medications were observed with six errors for a medication error rate of 17.64%. This finding affected two (Residents #3 and #53) of three residents observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #42 and Resident #53 were served food items per the dietary menu and meal ticket. This finding affected two (Residents #42 and #53) of three residents reviewed for meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the proper serving size was provided for the main lunch entrée. This affected five residents (#3, #16, #17, #18, and #73) of five residents who received the main lunch entrée in the dining room. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #54) did not develop an unstageable pressure ulcer of the sacrum. Actual Harm occurred when Resident #54 who was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] for rehabilitation following surgery for a left hip fracture developed a sacral pressure ulcer that was not identified until it was unstageable. This affected one resident (Resident #54) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure garbage was disposed of properly. This had the potential to affect all residents in the building. Facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure two resident's (Resident's #30 and #63) received assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). This affected two resident's (Resident's #30 and #63) out of three residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of therapy evaluation the facility failed to ensure Resident #63 wore his left hand splint per physician orders and therapy recommendations. This affected one resident (Resident #63) out of three residents reviewed for orthotic devices. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure two residents (Residents #1 and #30) were provided assistance with feeding and failed to ensure weekly weights were obtained. This affected two residents (Residents #1 and #30) out of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. This finding affected three (Residents #21, #46 and #63) of five residents observed for medication administration. A total of 27 medications were administered with three errors for a medication error rate of 11.11 percent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #20 and #52 received their diets as ordered. This affected two (Residents #20 and #52) of five residents reviewed for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate medication administration records. This affected two (Residents #46 and #63) of five residents observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview the facility failed to provide adequate accessible hydration to residents who resided on the secured dementia unit. This had the potential to affect all 21 residents (#7, #8, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #21, #22, #27, #28, #30, #37, #58, #60, #71, #299, #323, #324 and #325) residing on the secured dementia unit. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure documentation on the treatment administration records for Resident #3, Resident #38 and Resident #48 was complete. This affected three residents (#3, #38 and #48) of six residents reviewed for treatment documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain adequate infection control practices during incontinence care for Resident #99 to prevent the spread of infection. This affected one resident (#99) of one resident observed during incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice to Resident #73 as required. This affected one resident (#73) and had the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility.
25 fire safety citations on file: 7 on February 27, 2025, 2 on July 29, 2024, 9 on October 24, 2022, 7 on November 14, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 27, 2025 | Payment Denial | 4 days from April 6, 2025 |
| November 14, 2024 | Fine | $23,140 |
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) | not reported | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: This facility submitted data that did not meet the criteria required to calculate a staffing measure.
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 3.06 on weekdays and 2.57 on weekends, 16% 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 3.70 in April to June 2025 to 2.92 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 | 2.92 | 0.57 | 3.06 | 2.57 | 0.0% | 5 of 90 | 85 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.60 | 3.56 | 3.12 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.55 | 3.59 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.70 | 0.60 | 3.84 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 84 |
| 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.
| 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 | 5.6 | 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 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.1 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.5 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avenue at Macedonia's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.2% 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. 116 eligible stays.
12.7% 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. 115 eligible stays.
8.1% 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. 50 eligible stays.
62.5% 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. 32 residents counted.
2.0% 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. 49 residents counted.
2.6% 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. 49 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. 25 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: PROGRESSIVE MACEDONIA LLC. CMS links this home to Progressive Quality Care, a group of 11 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flank, Eitan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/10/2022 |
| Flank, Liat | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/10/2022 |
| Flank, Matan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/10/2022 |
| Flank, Shaul | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/10/2022 |
| Sausen, Joel | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/10/2022 |
| Flank, Eitan | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/24/2015 | |
| Flank, Liat | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/24/2015 | |
| Flank, Matan | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/24/2015 | |
| Flank, Shaul | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/24/2015 | |
| Sausen, Joel | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/24/2015 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/27/2017 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/27/2017 | |
| Brock, Katherine | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/26/2024 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/27/2025 | |
| Brock, Katherine | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/26/2024 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/24/2015 | |
| Flank, Liat | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/10/2022 | |
| Flank, Matan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/10/2022 | |
| Flank, Shaul | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/10/2022 | |
| Sausen, Joel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/10/2022 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/27/2017 |
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.