Home / Ohio / North Ridgeville
6200 Lear Nagle Road, North Ridgeville, OH 44039 · Lorain County · (440) 412-7100
103 certified beds, about 97 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2020
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366477 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 29, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since June 2020, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $139,370 in the last three years; the largest was $70,980, and the latest is dated June 29, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.69 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
46.7% 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, review of hospital paperwork, review of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) run report, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely care and services following Resident #105's change in condition and failed to implement Resident #4's skin treatments as ordered. Actual harm occurred on 05/30/26 when Resident #105, who had a history of stroke and mild cognitive impairment, was observed to have a change in his cognitive and physical status without prompt assessment and response to Resident #105's change in condition. Facility staff noted possible slurred speech earlier on 05/30/26, but the resident was not assessed or treated until a left facial droop was identified at 11:00 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview, review of facility call light tracking records, review of complaint intakes, and review of Resident Council meeting minutes, the facility failed to have adequate staffing to meet the care needs of all residents. This directly affected seven (#41, #14, #51, #93, #77, #101, #31) of seven residents reviewed for staffing and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, review of Resident Council meeting minutes, and review of the facility handbook, the facility failed to ensure staff did not utilize their personal phones in resident care areas of the facility. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, family interview, and employee handbook review, the facility failed to ensure resident family members and other individuals were able to contact facility staff members via telephone. This directly affected one resident (Resident #93) of one resident reviewed for resident access. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #41's PureWick incontinence device was implemented per the physician's order. This finding affected one (Resident #41) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This affected three (#77, #93 and #101) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with assistive devices per physician orders and the plan of care. This affected one (Resident #14) of one resident reviewed for adaptive equipment. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure staff wore gloves while administering insulin to maintain infection control. This affected one Resident (Resident #4) of two receiving receiving insulin on the 200 hallway.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and review of manufacturer's instructions for use, the facility failed to ensure mechanical lift (Hoyer) devices were properly maintained to promote safe transfers. This had the potential to affect 31 residents (#3, #4, #6, #8, #10, #12, #13, #26, #27, #30, #33, #35, #36, #37, #38, #43, #44, #46, #47, #61, #65, #68, #70, #73, #80, #82, #84, #85, #87, #91, and #96) who were identified to require a mechanical lift for transferring. The facility census was 100. Review of the medical record for Resident #84 revealed an admission date of 08/10/21 with diagnoses to include quadriplegia, anxiety disorder and hypothyroidism. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #84 was cognitively intact and was dependent for activities of daily living. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the medical record, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician orders resulting in a medication error exceeding five percent. 41 opportunities were observed with six medication errors, resulting in a medication error rate of 14 percent. This affected four (#37, #80, #84, #89) of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 100. 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #89 revealed an admission date of 03/25/25. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, dementia, and adjustment disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident representatives were notified of medication changes. This affected two (#95, #43) of three residents reviewed for changes in condition. The facility census was 100. 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #95 revealed an admission date of 05/06/21. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of a physician order dated 05/05/25 revealed the resident had an order for metformin 500 milligrams (mg), give one tablet daily for type two diabetes mellitus. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised to reflect Resident #95's allergies and Resident #103's morning arise time. This affected two residents #95 and # 103. The facility's census was 100. 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #103 revealed an admission date of 04/01/22 and readmission date of 01/08/24 with a discharge date of 07/10/25. Diagnoses included type Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and required moderate assistance for activities of daily living. Review of the concern dated 05/22/25 revealed that Resident #103's daughter requested that she stay in bed longer before getting resident up for the day. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an external catheter system for incontinence care was provided per physician orders. This affected one (#43) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 100. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #43 had an admission date of 01/23/25. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. The resident was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. The resident was dependent for transfers and required substantial/maximal assistance for toileting. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident allergy was identified for a physician ordered medication during the monthly medication regimen review. This affected one (#95) of three residents reviewed for medication allergies. The facility census was 100. Review of the medical record for Resident #95 revealed an admission date of 05/06/21. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of Resident #95's allergy alert profile dated 05/26/21 revealed the resident had allergies to metformin, Depakote, Geodon, Lexapro, Pravachol, Seroquel, and Zetia. On 08/27/24 an allergy to Ativan was added. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, pharmacist interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not administered a medication with a noted allergy without clarification from the physician. This affected one (#95) of three residents reviewed for medication allergies. The facility identified 67 residents with medication allergies. The facility census was 100. Review of the medical record for Resident #95 revealed an admission date of 05/06/21. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure daily staffing information was posted on 08/29/24. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, hospital documentation review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure surgical wound and wound drainage care was provided as ordered by a physician following re-admission to the facility. This affected one (#52) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, hospital documentation review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident re-admission and skin assessments were accurate. This affected one (#52) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on family and staff interviews, record review, review of hospital records, review of facility policy, and review of facility fall investigations, the facility failed to ensure Resident #100 received adequate and timely care and treatment following an unwitnessed fall with major injury. Actual Harm occurred on 03/03/24 following an unwitnessed fall at 7:00 P.M. when the facility failed to adequately identify the resident's injury, treat the resident's pain, and timely obtain an x-ray for Resident #100, who, over the next few days, exhibited signs of pain (including verbal complaints of pain, facial grimacing and winching in pain during care and with movement). The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was notified of Resident #100's pain on 03/05/24 at 5:40 P.M. and ordered bilateral arm x-rays due to pain. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, policy review, and review of a self-reported incident, the facility failed to ensure Resident #89 was treated with respect and dignity during care. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure privacy and dignity was provided to Resident #02 while toileting, and failed to ensure indwelling urinary catheter drainage bags were covered in a dignified manner for Residents #39 and #56. This affected four (Residents #89, #02, #39, and #56) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living and dignity. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 significant change assessment for a resident who sustained a significant decline in functional abilities following a fall with upper extremity fracture. This affected one (Resident #20) of ten residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and a summary provided to Resident #100 and/or their representative. The facility also failed to ensure a summary of Resident #111's baseline plan of care was provided to the resident and/or their representative. This affected two (Residents #100 and #111) of four residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were updated to reflect individualized and necessary components of the residents' care. This affected two (Residents #20 and #94) of ten residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to remove an indwelling urinary catheter as ordered and failed to provide justification for the continued use of the indwelling urinary catheter. This affected one (Resident #20) of one resident reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteTHIS IS AN INCIDENCE OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, interviews with staff and local police officers, review of medical records, review of the facility's investigation, review of data from the Weather Underground website, and review of the facility policy for elopement, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #38) with diagnoses of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, age related cognitive decline, multiple sclerosis (MS) and lack of coordination did not walk away from the facility unsupervised and without staff knowledge. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and personnel file review, the facility failed to ensure all State Tested Nursing Assistants met the competency verification requirements. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were held in a timely manner and residents or their representatives were included in their care conferences. This affected one (#105) of three residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered resulting in a significant medication error. This affected one (#104) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's central line intravenous (IV) catheter was maintained per the facility policy. This affected one (#87) of two residents reviewed for having IV catheters. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had treatment orders for wounds and failed to ensure dressing changes were completed as ordered. This affected two (Residents #50 and #96) of three sampled residents. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure X-ray results were communicated to the physician. This affected one (Resident #97) of three sampled residents. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, review of weekly cleaning logs, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen area. This had the potential to affect 61 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Resident #37 as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity at meal service. This affected one resident (#35) observed during meal service. The facility identified one resident who required pureed meals. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a medical record request document, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide copies of the medical record within two working days one (#166) of one resident reviewed for medical record requests. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan for urostomy care. This affected one (#62) of one resident reviewed for urostomy care. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, family interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate communication tools for one (#9) out of one resident reviewed for communication needs. The census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were completed per physician orders. This affected one (#1) of one resident reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and family interview, the facility failed to replace a resident's missing glasses. This affected one (#22) of two residents reviewed for missing items. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing for the oxygen concentrator and tubing for the aerosol nebulizer for one (#8) of three residents reviewed for respiratory therapy. The facility census was 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on review medical records, review of guidelines from the National Library of Medicine/National Institute of Health, observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician orders. This affected three (#166, #26, #22) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 62. 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #166 revealed an admission date of 01/12/23 and a discharge date of 01/18/23. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of myocardial infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension atrial flutter, systolic heart failure, malignant neoplasm of part of the right bronchus or lung, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the five day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/17/23, revealed the resident had intact cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of immunization documentation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered a pneumococcal vaccination. This affected one (#10) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 62.
11 fire safety citations on file: 6 on June 29, 2026, 5 on February 22, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 29, 2026 | Fine | $70,980 |
| June 29, 2026 | Payment Denial | 20 days from July 24, 2026 |
| April 9, 2024 | Fine | $58,351 |
| April 9, 2024 | Payment Denial | 10 days from May 3, 2024 |
| February 15, 2024 | Fine | $10,039 |
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) | 3.69 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.41 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.17 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.7% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.9% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.59 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 3.41 on weekends, 10% 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 3.61 in April to June 2025 to 3.69 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 | 3.69 | 0.59 | 3.81 | 3.41 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 97 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.60 | 0.54 | 3.68 | 3.38 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 98 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.71 | 0.63 | 3.80 | 3.46 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 97 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.61 | 0.61 | 3.67 | 3.45 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 98 |
| 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 | 6.6 | 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 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 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 | 6.6 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.4 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.2 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avenue at North Ridgeville's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.3% 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. 92 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 94 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 83 eligible stays.
77.8% 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. 45 residents counted.
3.2% 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. 63 residents counted.
1.6% 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. 63 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. 28 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 NORTH RIDGEVILLE, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive North Ridgeville Partners, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/21/2018 |
| Mike Flank Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 13% | 09/09/2022 |
| Colonna, Julian | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 06/21/2018 |
| Colonna, Vito | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 06/21/2018 |
| Flank, Eitan | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 8% | 06/21/2018 |
| Flank, Liat | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 8% | 06/21/2018 |
| Flank, Matan | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 8% | 06/21/2018 |
| Flank, Shaul | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 8% | 06/21/2018 |
| Sausen, Joel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 8% | 06/21/2018 |
| Colonna, Julian | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Colonna, Vito | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Flank, Liat | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Flank, Matan | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Flank, Shaul | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/15/2018 | |
| Bhimani, Jayantilal | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/08/2020 | |
| Dorsey, Kathryn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/09/2025 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Mike Flank Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/09/2022 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/13/2025 | |
| Bhimani, Jayantilal | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/08/2020 | |
| Dorsey, Kathryn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/09/2025 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/15/2018 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/15/2018 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.