Home / Ohio / Warrensville Heights
4120 Interchange Corporate Center Road, Warrensville Heights, OH 44128 · Cuyahoga County · (216) 896-9900
97 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2010
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366394 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 13, 2025, inspectors cited 26 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 53 health citations since August 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $34,146 in the last three years; the largest was $17,345, and the latest is dated January 10, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.58 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.52 of those hours.
67.5% 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 53 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of the Ohio e-licensure verification website, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had an active nursing license. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and review of photographs, the facility failed to ensure timely colostomy care was provided to residents. This affected one resident (#73) of one resident reviewed for colostomy care. The facility identified only one resident (#83) in-house with an ostomy. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care was provided for four residents (Resident #34, #40, #43 and #84) of four residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interviews, and review of the facility assessment, the facility did not ensure staffing levels were sufficient to provide nursing and related services to maintain the highest practicable well-being of the residents. This affected four current Residents (#26, #34, #40, and #43) and one former resident (#84) of five residents reviewed for sufficient staffing and had potential to affect an additional 79 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices while providing care to Resident #40 who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This affected one resident (Resident #40) of one resident observed for EBP and had the potential to affect an additional 41 residents (Resident #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #8, #11, #15, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #26, #27, #28, #29, #31, #34, #35, #36, #39, #41, #43, #44, #46, #51, #55, #56, #59, #60, #61, #66, #75, #76, #77, #78, #81, and #83) who resided on the upper floor. The facility identified 19 residents (Resident #10, #11, #14, #17, #18, #20, #38, #39, #40, #45, #50, #53, #54, #56, #60, #66, #73, #74, and #75) as requiring EBP. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure timely notification to the physician when Resident #67 displayed a change of condition from his baseline. This affected one resident ( Resident #67) of three residents reviewed for change of condition. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI), interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #14 was free of sexual abuse from another resident (Resident #86). This affected one (Resident #14) of three residents reviewed for sexual abuse. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of staffing schedules and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week as required. This had the potential to affect all 87 residents currently residing in the facility. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary, and safe environment. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 87 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to revise the care plans as required and failed to ensure resident care planning conference were held as required. This affected four (#72, #25, #29, and #59) of seven residents reviewed for care plans and care planning conferences. The facility census was 87. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side after a stroke, aphasia (the inability to speak) after a stroke, osteomyelitis of vertebrae of the sacral and sacrococcygeal region, diabetes, high blood pressure, obstructive and reflux uropathy, and Alzheimer's disease with early onset. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure outdated drinks and food and beverage additives were stored in a manner to prevent spoilage. This had the potential to affect four ( #3, #28, #70, and #77) of four residents identified by the facility as receiving on thickened liquids. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate and complete. This affected five (#1, #6, #30, #105, and #112) of 33 resident records reviewed. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a dignified dining experience. This affected two (#25 and #95) out of three reviewed for respect and dignity. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, review of an invoice, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bed was appropriate to accommodate his height and weight and failed to ensure call lights were within reach for resident use. This affected three (#76, #44, and #95) out of seven residents reviewed for appropriate accommodation of needs. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's family or responsible party were notified of changes in condition. This affected one (#6) of two residents reviewed for change in condition. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Notices of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNCs) were provided to Medicare Part A beneficiaries prior to the discontinuation of skilled services in a timely manner. This deficient practice affected two (#110 and #111) out of three residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, review of self-reported incidents, review of discharge notices, and review of a policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were permitted to return to the facility following a hospitalization and failed to ensure documentation of the need for discharge was reflected in the medical record to establish the need for discharge from the facility. This affected three residents (#18, #26 and #89) out of five residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of an Ombudsman notification log, the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman was notified of resident hospitalizations as required. This affected three (#6, #17, and #24) of five residents reviewed for discharges. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in condition Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was conducted for Resident #64 following a significant change as required. This affected one (#64) of one residents reviewed for hospice services. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the appropriate state agency, the Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH), of a significant change in a resident's mental health condition, as required. This deficient practice affected one (#38) of two residents reviewed for pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR). The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an initial baseline care plan was initiated within 48 hours of admission as required. This affected one (#105) of four residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident finger nail care was provided in an adequate manner. This affected one (#29) of six residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to initiated orders timely and timely implement interventions for treatment of edema. This affected one (#88) of two residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31's unstageable pressure ulcer to the coccyx was accurately identified and treated timely. This affected one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, review of fall investigations, review of an incident log, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure thorough fall investigations were completed, resident care plans were revised to reflect current fall interventions, and fall interventions were in place as ordered. This affected three (#20, #24, and #25) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with timely incontinence care. This affected two (#5 and #77) of four residents reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident oxygen tanks were stored in a secured manner. This affected three (#57, #75, and #30) of 45 residents who resided on the first floor of the facility. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an antibiotic medication was administered as ordered. This affected one (#102) of two residents reviewed for urinary tract infections. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory values as ordered and failed to notify the physician of laboratory results as required. This affected one (#59) of two residents reviewed for urinary tract infections. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was utilized when providing care for residents on enhanced barrier precautions and failed to handle contaminated items in a safe manner. This affected one (#95) of two residents observed for infection control precautions. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure residents received COVID immunizations as requested. This affected three (#66, #86, and #55) of the eight residents reviewed for COVID immunizations. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of manufacturer's instructions, the facility failed to ensure side rails were securely attached and in place to prevent resident entrapment or other accidents. This deficient practice affected three (#50, #55, and #79) of 22 residents who utilized side rails for safety. The census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the posted nursing staff information was up to date as required. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 87 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, closed medical record review, review of the local police report, staff interviews, review of the National Weather Service forecast, review of the facility Elopement Policy and Procedure, review of Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy and Procedure, and review of camera footage, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #95, who had diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, malnutrition, and adult failure to thrive and severe cognitive impairment, from leaving the facility without staff knowledge. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and actual harm leading to death beginning on [DATE] at approximately 8:40 P.M. when Resident #95 was last seen inside the facility. On [DATE] at 9:30 P.M., [DATE] at 12:36 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to report an incident of neglect involving Resident #95 to the State Agency as required. This affected one resident (#95) of four residents reviewed for neglect. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident bathing preferences were honored. This affected four (Residents #21, #29, #34, and #58) of six residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility also failed to ensure residents preferences regarding transfer in and out of bed were honored. This affected two (Residents #21 and #65) of six residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 91 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to offer/provide timely incontinence care. This affected two (Residents #16 and #65) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 91 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #94 was provided a safe transfer via mechanical lift to prevent a fall with injury. This affected one resident (#94) of five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility identified 20 additional residents (#11, #14, #17, #18, #24, #26, #27, #32, #33, #36, #41, #46, #47, #49, #55, #71, #75, #82, #84, and #92) who required a mechanical lift for transfers. The facility census was 87. Actual Harm occurred on 04/19/24 when Resident #94, who was a bilateral above the knee amputee, exhibited balance deficits, was moderately cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for transfers sustained a fall during a staff assisted mechanical (Hoyer) lift transfer. At the time of the incident, State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #605 and STNA #617 were transferring Resident #94 from the bed to the chair. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to administer medications to Resident #52 without verifying that he ingested all the medications. This affected one resident (#52) of five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #84 was free from significant medication error. Actual Harm occurred on [DATE] at 12:00 P.M. when Resident #84 who received Hospice services was administered 5 milliliters (ml) of Morphine Concentrate 20 milligrams (mg) per ml by mouth which equaled 100 mg medication, ten times the amount ordered, resulting in a medication overdose. Resident #84 was monitored by the facility nurses for respiratory distress and failure and was administered Narcan for respiratory distress on [DATE] at 7:03 P.M. This affected one resident (Resident #84) out of five reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an open bottle of a controlled drug level two substance brought from home was handled properly to ensure accurate administration, failed to ensure accurate orders for a controlled drug level two substance were documented in Resident #84's medical record and failed to ensure verification of orders of a controlled drug level two substance with Resident #84's physician upon admission to the facility. This affected one resident (Resident #84) out of five reviewed for appropriate procedures followed for controlled drug level two substances. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, hospital record review, review of the facility assessment, review of facility policy and interviews with facility and hospital staff, the facility failed to ensure Resident #82 was allowed to return to the facility following a hospitalization for a psychiatric evaluation. This affected one resident (#82) of three residents reviewed for transfer/discharge. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of Resident Council minutes, the facility did not ensure foods were discarded prior to spoilage, foods were free from ice buildup in the freezer, and scoops were stored outside of bulk food bins. This had the potential to affect all 77 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified two residents (#28 and #71) that received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were completed accurately. This affected three residents (#26, #29, and #33) of 25 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a person-centered baseline care plan for Resident #277. This affected one resident (#277) of three residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for Residents #5 and #56. This affected two residents (#5 and #56) of two residents who were reviewed with bilateral amputations. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure all residents were provided adequate and timely assistance with activity of daily care to meet their total care needs. This affected three residents (#25, #61, and #277) of five residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatments were completed as ordered for Resident #329 and failed to maintain adeqauate infection control practices during wound care to prevent the spread of infection to the resident. This affected one resident (#329) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance to Resident #277 during a Hoyer (mechanical) lift transfer. This affected one resident (#277) of three residents reviewed for falls/accidents. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately document completed treatments provided for Residents #5 and #56. This affected two residents (#5 and #56) of two residents whose medical records were reviewed related to treatments. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staff provided the hand splint for Resident #45 per his restorative program. This affected one out of one resident reviewed for restorative services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medical record accurately reflected medication administration for Resident #36, supplement intake for Resident #64, and use of an orthotic device for Resident #72. This affected three of 23 resident records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment for Resident #33 and Resident #28 and failed to complete a dressing change for Resident #72 in a sanitary manner to prevent contamination. This affected two of two residents reviewed for respiratory equipment and one of two residents reviewed for dressing changes.
34 fire safety citations on file: 9 on August 13, 2025, 13 on May 24, 2023, 12 on August 22, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 10, 2025 | Fine | $17,345 |
| April 25, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
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) | 3.58 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.52 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.26 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.96 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.10 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 67.5% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 63.2% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.56 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 3.71 on weekdays and 3.26 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 12.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.75 in April to June 2025 to 3.58 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 | 3.58 | 0.52 | 3.71 | 3.26 | 12.3% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.81 | 0.77 | 4.00 | 3.35 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.34 | 0.42 | 3.56 | 2.79 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.75 | 0.79 | 4.00 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 86 |
| 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 | 6.0 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.4 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avenue Care and Rehabilitation Center, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.4% 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. 54 eligible stays.
11.0% 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. 66 eligible stays.
7.1% 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. 44 eligible stays.
72.0% 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. 25 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. 45 residents counted.
6.5% 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. 45 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 15 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 INTERCHANGE HEALTHCARE 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 Interchange LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/31/2009 |
| Flank Real Estate, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 29% | 01/31/2009 |
| Mike Flank Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 21% | 09/09/2022 |
| Greenburg, Steve | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 27% | 01/31/2009 |
| Shiller, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/31/2009 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/31/2009 | |
| Agarwal, Rajesh | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2011 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2009 | |
| Lesher, Elizabeth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/21/2021 | |
| Flank Real Estate, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/31/2009 | |
| Mike Flank Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/09/2022 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/19/2024 | |
| Agarwal, Rajesh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2011 | |
| Flank, Eitan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/31/2009 | |
| Greenburg, Steve | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/31/2009 | |
| Lesher, Elizabeth | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/21/2021 | |
| Shiller, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/31/2009 |
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.