23900 Chagrin Blvd, Beachwood, OH 44122 · Cuyahoga County · (216) 464-1000
120 certified beds, about 100 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365071 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 23, 2024, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 37 health citations since May 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 3.08 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.35 of those hours.
67.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary resident environment. The affected two (Residents #17 and #30) of three residents observed for environment. This had the potential to affect all residents residing on the first and second floor who utilized the second-floor shower. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure plans of care were created and/or revised in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #17) of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was completed as ordered and as needed. This affected two (Resident #5 and Resident #17) who were dependent on staff for care of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were updated and blood glucose levels were monitored appropriately. This affected one (Resident #17) of three residents reviewed for physician orders. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation ,staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the dumpster/refuse area was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, review of facility menus, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the registered dietitian approved dietary menus were followed and the facility did not run out of menu items during service as required. This had the potential to affect 99 residents receiving meals from the facility. The facility indicated that three residents (Residents #6, #23, and #66) were receiving nothing by mouth from the kitchen. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of facility policies the facility failed to ensure palatable meals were served for resident meals. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the facility. The facility indicated three residents (Residents #6, #23, and #66 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of facility kitchen cleaning schedules, and facility policies the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary kitchen was maintained as required. This had the potential to affect 99 residents in the facility receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified three residents (Resident #6, #23, and #66) who received no food by mouth. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and safe storage of outside foods for residents. This had the potential to affect 36 residents residing on the second floor (Residents #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #67, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #73, and #74) residing in the facility. The facility indicated Resident #66 received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 102.1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, interviews, review of facility menus, spreadsheets, and facility policy revealed the facility failed to ensure four residents (Residents #36, #80, #82 and #99) received the physician ordered pureed diet as required. The facility indicated there were three residents (Residents #6, #23, and #66) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to timely reorder medications to avoid missed doses. This affected one resident (Resident #32) of three residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The total census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide privacy curtains in shared rooms. This affected two (Resident #5 and #82) of six residents reviewed for privacy. The total census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents residing at the facility except two residents (Residents #88 and #94) identified by the facility as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents had a clean, comfortable, home-like environment due to a pervasive urine odor, the first-floor central bathroom was not maintained in a clean, sanitary manner, and failed to ensure door thresholds (a strip of wood, or metal forming the bottom of the doorway entering a room) were not missing. This affected all 40 residents on the first floor (#2, #5, #7, #12, #15, #16, #18, #21, #27, #28, #29, #32, #33, #35, #38, #39, #44, #46, #48, #50, #52, #53, #56, #57, #60, #63, #66, #68, #69, #70, #72, #76, #85, #86, #88, #91, #93, #95, #100, and #101). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, Ohio Department of Health Gateway review, and review of the facility abuse policy, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy including investigating and reporting Resident #22's allegation that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #614 verbally abused her and withheld her pain medication out of retaliation. This affected one resident (#22) out of seven residents reviewed for abuse. The facility also failed to investigate and report Resident #104's daughter-in-law's allegation that Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #615 was yelling at residents in the third-floor dining room. This had the potential to affect 25 residents (#4, #6, #8, #10, #11, #14, #23, #24, #36, #37, #40, #41, #51, #54, #64, #65, #67, #71, #82, #84, #87, #89, #90, #96, and #103) residing on the third floor. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, Ohio Department of Health Gateway review, and review of the facility abuse policy, the facility failed to report Resident #22's allegation that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #614 verbally abused her and withheld her pain medication out of retaliation. This affected one resident (#22) out of seven residents reviewed for abuse. The facility also failed to report Resident #104's daughter-in-law's allegation that Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #615 was yelling at residents in the third-floor dining room. This had the potential to affect 25 residents (#4, #6, #8, #10, #11, #14, #23, #24, #36, #37, #40, #41, #51, #54, #64, #65, #67, #71, #82, #84, #87, #89, #90, #96, and #103) residing on the third floor. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of the facility abuse policy, the facility failed to investigate Resident #22's allegation that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #614 verbally abused her and withheld her pain medication out of retaliation. This affected one resident (#22) out of seven residents reviewed for abuse. The facility also failed to investigate Resident #104 daughter-in-law's allegation that Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #615 was yelling at residents in the third-floor dining room. This had the potential to affect 25 residents (#4, #6, #8, #10, #11, #14, #23, #24, #36, #37, #40, #41, #51, #54, #64, #65, #67, #71, #82, #84, #87, #89, #90, #96, and #103) residing on the third floor. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care was provided to Residents #1, #7, #15, and #48. This affected four residents (#1, #7, #15, #48) out of five residents reviewed for incontinence care. This had the potential to affect 52 residents (#1, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #10, #13, #14, #15, #19, #23, #24, #26, #29, #30, #33, #37, #38, #41, #42, #43, #45, #46, #48, #52, #54, #55, #58, #59, #60, #64, #65, #66, #69, #70,#72, #73, #74, #75, #81, #82, #85, #88, #89, #91, #93, #96, #95, #99, #102, and #103) identified by the facility as incontinent. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, Facility Assessment review, the facility failed to ensure they maintained sufficient and competent staff on the first floor on 10/28/24. This affected three residents (#1, #7, and #15) out of seven residents reviewed for staffing. This had the potential to affect 40 residents (#2, #5, #7, #12, #15, #16, #18, #21, #27, #28, #29, #32, #33, #35, #38, #39, #44, #46, #48, #50, #52, #53, #56, #57, #60, #63, #66, #68, #69, #70, #72, #76, #85, #86, #88, #91, #93, #95, #100, and #101) residing on the first floor. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to employ a qualified dietary manager to carry out the functions of the food service department. This had the potential to affect all 94 residents receiving food from the facility kitchen. The facility identified three residents (#8, #91 and #201) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview and review of facility policy the facility did not ensure the pureed menu was followed for residents requiring a pureed diet. This affected three residents (#38, #71 and #350) of three residents who required pureed diets. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to store, prepare and serve foods under sanitary conditions and to prevent the potential for food born illness. This had the potential to affect 94 residents receiving meals from the facility. The facility identified three residents (#8, #91, and #201) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain resident rooms in a safe, sanitary, and homelike condition. This affected seven residents (Resident #6, #16, #40, #43, #68, #71, and #85 ) of 97 resident rooms observed for physical environment. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure care plans reflected resident needs regarding Activities of Daily Living (ADL), hospice, wound care and behaviors. This affected five Residents (#7, #16, #60, #74, and #197) of 25 resident records reviewed. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of medical record request forms and interview, the facility failed to ensure medical record requests were completed timely for Resident #197. This affected one resident (Resident #197) of one resident reviewed for medical record requests. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure a STAT (urgent) urinalysis test was obtained according to the physician order delaying treatment of a urinary tract infection (UTI) for Resident #197. This affected one resident (Resident #197) of 25 residents reviewed for physician orders. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed for Resident #46. This affected one Resident (#46) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 97. Finding Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an admission date of 10/02/19. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, hypertension, and dementia. The record revealed the last lipid panel ( a blood test used to check the amount of cholesterol in the blood) was completed on 06/22/22. The resident was taking Lipitor (a drug used to lower cholesterol in the blood) Review of the pharmacy recommendation dated 09/20/23 recommended a lipid panel now and annually to monitor Lipitor. The recommendation was signed by the physician on 10/10/23 indicating a lipid panel should be completed as ordered. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview the facility did not ensure physician ordered treatments were consistently documented in the medical record for Resident #197. This affected one resident ( Resident #197) of 25 resident records reviewed for physician orders. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #46 had a functional call light. This affected one resident (# 46) of 24 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 97. Findings Include: Interview with Resident #46 on 07/15/24 at 2:30 P.M. revealed her call light had not been lighting up when she pressed the call button. Observation of Resident #46's call light on 07/15/24 at 2:35 P.M. with the facility's Director of Maintenance (DOM) revealed the call light above the resident's door was not working when activated. The DOM stated he had replaced the bulb several days earlier. The DOM shook the call light above the door, the call light lit up, and the DOM stated it must have been loose wiring attached to the bulb so he would fix it. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and sanitary environment. This affected Resident #67 and had the potential to affect all 90 residents in the facility. The facility census was 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in the first and second floor kitchenettes. This had the potential to affect all 39 residents on the first floor (Resident #4,#6,#7,#11,#14,#19,#20,#24,#29,#30,#33,#35,#37,#38,#41,#42,#48,#50,#51,#53,#55,#56,#57,#61,#64,#66,#71,#72,#74,#79,#81,#85,#87,#88,#90,#95,#97,#102,#103) and 32 residents on the second floor (#1,#2,#3,#12,#18,#21,#22,#28,#31,#34,#36,#39,#40,#44,#45,#49,#52,#54,#60,#62,#65,#69,#75,#77,#80,#82,#83,#84,#86,#92,#96,#99,#100,#101)who received foods from those kitchenettes, as the facility identified Resident #36 and #99, who lived on the second floor, as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the baseboard in the first floor kitchenette was safety adhered to the wall in order to prevent a source of moisture entrapment and subsequent growth of mold. This had the potential to affect all 39 residents ((Resident #4,#6,#7,#11,#14,#19,#20,#24,#29,#30,#33,#35,#37,#38,#41,#42,#48,#50,#51,#53,#55,#56,#57,#61,#64,#66,#71,#72,#74,#79,#81,#85,#87,#88,#90,#95,#97,#102,#103) living on the first floor. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure Resident #56 attended a follow-up appointment with an outside provider. This affected one resident (#56) of three residents reviewed for ancillary services. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications to treat diabetes and to improve glucose control were administered as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #99) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans for antidepressant medications were written for Resident #24 and Resident #44 and failed to ensure a care plan to address hemodialysis care was in place for Resident #30. This affected three residents (Resident's #24, #30 and #44) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and review of manufacture's guidelines, and policy review the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. Two errors occurred within thirty-three opportunities for error resulting in a medication error rate of 6.06 percent. This affected two (Resident #22 and #292) of six residents observed during the medication administration observation. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #76's splint was applied to the right hand as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #76) of two residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility census was 103.
40 fire safety citations on file: 17 on July 23, 2024, 14 on April 11, 2022, 9 on May 9, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 23, 2024 | Payment Denial | 21 days from October 23, 2024 |
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) | 3.08 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.35 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.86 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.76 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.98 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 67.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.39 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 3.17 on weekdays and 2.86 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.43 in April to June 2025 to 3.08 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 | 3.08 | 0.35 | 3.17 | 2.86 | 3.1% | 0 of 90 | 100 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.05 | 0.34 | 3.16 | 2.79 | 1.8% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.14 | 0.33 | 3.25 | 2.86 | 3.3% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.43 | 0.29 | 3.57 | 3.09 | 3.8% | 0 of 91 | 95 |
| 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 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 37.9 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.8 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Beachwood Pointe Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 18 eligible stays.
10.0% 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. 36 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 20 eligible stays.
52.2% 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. 46 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. 73 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. 73 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. 12 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: BEACHWOOD NURSING.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beachwood Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/02/2021 |
| Beachwood Opco LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 62% | 08/02/2021 |
| Guttman, Mayer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 19% | 08/02/2021 |
| Shapiro, Naftali | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 19% | 08/02/2021 |
| Fuego LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/02/2021 | |
| Agarwal, Rajesh | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/02/2021 | |
| Draper, Shanta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Shapiro, Naftali | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/02/2021 | |
| Fuego LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Agarwal, Rajesh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Draper, Shanta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Guttman, Mayer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/02/2021 | |
| Shapiro, Naftali | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/02/2021 |
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.