699 East Smith Road, Medina, OH 44256 · Medina County · (330) 721-7001
70 certified beds, about 62 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2013
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366407 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 18, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 23 health citations since December 2019 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.67 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.63 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
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 23 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, interviews, review of the State Board of Pharmacy investigation and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were safeguarded in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice when a licensed nurse diverted (stole) non-narcotic medications belonging to 10 residents without knowledge of facility administration. This affected 10 (Residents #6, #39, #43, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84) of 65 residents reviewed for medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to code resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately. This affected three (Residents #2, #8, and #43) of 15 sampled residents reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory tests were obtained per physician's order. This affected one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for laboratory findings. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure residents received COVID immunizations as requested. This affected one (Resident #43) of the five residents reviewed for COVID immunizations. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #58 and #66 had comprehensive post-fall assessments completed, failed to ensure Resident #58's care planned interventions were implemented, and failed to ensure Resident #58 had an individualized care planned intervention placed after a fall. This affected two residents (#58 and #66) out of three reviewed for falls. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 had a timely comprehensive pain assessment. This affected one resident (Resident #32) out of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff donned appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and used appropriate hand hygiene to potentially prevent the spread of infection for Resident #58 who was on contact precautions. In addition, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was completed before entering Resident #30's room to provide care. This affected two resident's (#30 and #58) and had the potential to affect 20 residents (#7, #8, #11, #15, #17, #22, #23, #26, #34, #35, #36, #38, #43, #49, #51, #53, #57, #58, #59, #62) on transmission-based precautions. The facility census was 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #15's pressure ulcer wound care dressing was in place as ordered. This finding affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure fluids were provided on Resident #43's meal trays as indicated on the meal ticket. This finding affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for meals and fluids.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, smart watch data review, and policy review the facility failed to check on Resident #69 every two hours as care planned, and failed to ensure residents receiving skilled services were weighed upon admission and vitals signs were obtained daily affecting Residents #23, #30 and #46. This affected four of nine sampled residents, Residents #69, #30, #23, and #46. Facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident council minutes and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure grievances voiced by residents during resident council meetings regarding call light response times were addressed in a timely manner. This affected three (Resident 14, #30 and #15) of nine sampled residents. Facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to notify a family of a fall with injury. This affected one (#70) of three residents reviewed for notification. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician orders and comprehensive care plans were in place for residents with intravenous (IV) access devices and medication ports. This affected three of three residents reviewed for IV devices/medication ports of nine sampled residents (Residents #42, #47 and #70). Facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #30's pain was managed effectively. This affected one of nine sampled residents, Resident #30. Facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques during wound care. This affected one (#30) of one resident observed for wound care. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene during wound dressing; failed to provide hand hygiene during blood glucose monitoring and failed to disinfect the glucometer; failed to properly prepare the skin prior to blood glucose sampling. This affected one Resident #38 of one observed for wound dressing; affected two Residents #36 and #46 of five residents who receive glucose monitoring and affected three residents #16, #36, #46 out of five residents who received glucose monitoring The facility census was 64. Finding Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 05/04/22. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, obesity, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #34, dated 10/01/22, revealed the resident had intact cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed ensure medications were stored securely. This affected two residents #15 and #31 and had the potential to affect an additional 33 Residents, #1, #5, #6, #9, #10, #14, #15,#16, #18, #19, #20,#21, #27,#28, #29, #31, #34, #38,#42, #45, #46, #47,#106, #107,#108, #110, #160, #161, #162, #163, #168, #259, and #260 The census was 64.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was clean and sanitary. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 64. At the time of the annual survey the facility had all resident's receiving food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a residents plan of care was individualized and up to date. This affected one resident (Resident #158) out of one resident reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility census was 64. Findings Include: Review of the open medical record of Resident #158 revealed an admission dated of 11/04/22. His admitting diagnoses included acute/chronic respiratory failure, pneumonia due to the Coronovirus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe protein calorie malnutrition, urinary tract infection, malignant neoplasm of the prostate and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #158's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident was cognitively intact. He did however, have episodes of forgetfulness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were implemented and followed. This affected two residents (Resident #38 and Resident #164) out of 43 residents reviewed for care plan interventions. The facility census was 64 Finding Included: 1. Review of the open medical record for Resident #38 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, congestive heart failure, dependence on renal dialysis, type II diabetes and acute respiratory failure. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident was alert and oriented times three. He needed extensive assistance of one person for most activities of daily living including bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a resident with a urinary catheter had catheter care performed per protocol. This affected one resident, Resident #158 out of one resident reviewed for catheters. The facility census was 64. Finding Include: Resident #158 was admitted to this facility on 11/04/22. His admitting diagnoses included acute/chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urinary tract infection, and malignant neoplasm of the prostate. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident was alert and oriented times three. He needed the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of the resident's physician orders revealed the resident was to be provided catheter care according to the facility policy. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide activities to meet the needs and preferences of all residents. This affected two (Resident #17 and #27) out of two residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to date an open vial of tuberculin. This had the potential to affect all 62 residents. The facility also failed to discard an expired Novolog pen. This had the potential to affect one resident (Resident #42).
15 fire safety citations on file: 7 on February 18, 2026, 3 on November 23, 2022, 5 on December 28, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.67 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.33 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.90 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.13 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 36.4% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.50 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 3.33 on weekends, 13% 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 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.67 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 | 3.67 | 0.63 | 3.81 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 62 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.84 | 0.68 | 3.99 | 3.46 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.60 | 0.60 | 3.78 | 3.15 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 65 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.66 | 3.62 | 3.17 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 64 |
| 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 | 4.3 | 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 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 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 | 3.8 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avenue at Medina's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.4% 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. 208 eligible stays.
13.4% 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. 209 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. 116 eligible stays.
87.3% 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. 79 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 100 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. 100 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. 65 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 MEDINA 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 | 11/19/2009 | |
| Flank, Liat | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/19/2009 | |
| Flank, Matan | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/19/2009 | |
| Flank, Shaul | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/19/2009 | |
| Sausen, Joel | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/19/2009 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2010 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2013 | |
| Jain, Sushil | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/19/2013 | |
| Nedolast, Sidney | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/16/2021 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/30/2024 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/15/2025 | |
| Flank, Liat | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2024 | |
| Flank, Matan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2024 | |
| Flank, Shaul | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2024 | |
| Jain, Sushil | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/19/2013 | |
| Nedolast, Sidney | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/16/2021 | |
| Sausen, Joel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2024 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/27/2024 |
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.