6505 Market Street, Youngstown, OH 44512 · Mahoning County · (330) 884-2300
115 certified beds, about 101 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2000
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366195 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 20, 2026, inspectors cited 0 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 81 health citations since December 2022, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $187,369 in the last three years; the largest was $187,369, and the latest is dated September 25, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.74 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.62 of those hours.
55.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to David Oberlander, an affiliated group of 7 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 81 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate wound care including wound assessments and treatments as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #61) out of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility identified 23 residents (Residents #2, #6, #18, #19, #24, #30, #31, #32, #33, #37, #38, #39, #45, #56, #60, #61, #67, #91, #95, #96, #99, #100 and #101) with wounds. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medical records contained accurate documentation. This affected one resident (Resident #61) out of five residents reviewed for accuracy of documentation. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to prepare enough of the main entrée for the lunch meal on 03/03/25 resulting in meals being delivered to the unit late and not being served at the correct temperatures. This affected one (1300) unit of four units in the facility. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure significant weight gain was timely investigated and/or addressed for a resident with congestive heart failure (CHF). This affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for dietary assistance with meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's significant weight loss was promptly investigated to determine if any additional nutritional interventions were necessary. This affected one (Resident #32) of three residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, review of the State of Ohio Gateway system, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report possible misappropriation of narcotic medications to the appropriate state agency. This affected two residents (#83 and #106) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation of narcotic medications and had the potential to affect 33 additional residents (#1, #4, #7, #8, #13, #17 #18, #15, #21, #23, #24, #27, #33, #34, #36, #38, #39, #40, #45, #46, #48, #49, #50, #70, #72, #77, #79, #80, #88, #90, #93, #96, and #99) identified as being on narcotic medications. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate narcotic medication administration was recorded for two residents (#83 and #106) three residents reviewed for administration of narcotic medications and had the potential to affect 33 additional residents (#1, #4, #7, #8, #13, #17 #18, #15, #21, #23, #24, #27, #33, #34, #36, #38, #39, #40, #45, #46, #48, #49, #50, #70, #72, #77, #79, #80, #88, #90, #93, #96, and #99) identified as being on narcotic medications. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of the Prehospital Care Report Summary, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #7 was provided timely and appropriate care and services to properly evaluate and treat a fall, Resident #7 was not administered pain medication for complaints of severe pain after the fall and was not transported to the hospital timely after the fall. This affected one resident (#7) of six residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 102. Actual Harm occurred on 06/17/24 at 7:55 P.M. when Resident #7 experienced a fall, voiced severe pain after the fall, did not have pain medication ordered, and the physician was not contacted and notified Resident #7 had a fall and was experiencing severe pain until 06/18/24 at 6:36 A.M., ten hours after the fall. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure individualized care planned interventions were developed and followed to prevent Resident #32 and Resident #1 from developing in-house pressure ulcers and failed to ensure the pressure ulcers were timely identified, properly treated, and interventions were initiated to promote healing. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #24, #29 and #71 had pressure ulcer risk evaluations completed quarterly, failed to ensure Resident #81 had skin checks and treatments completed as ordered, and failed to ensure Resident #81's physician orders and care planned interventions were followed for heel protectors. This affected six residents (#32, #1, #24, #29, #71, and #81) of seven residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 102. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) documentation, hospital record review, facility policy review, and interview the facility failed to develop and implement an effective, comprehensive and individualized fall prevention program for Resident #197 to decrease the resident's risk of repeated falls. The facility failed to ensure Resident #197 was provided timely assistance with toileting and failed to ensure the resident was not left unattended in a chair in the activity room without proper footwear and clothing resulting in a fall on 08/26/24 with multiple fractures. The facility also failed to ensure accurate and complete fall risk assessments were completed for Resident #61. This affected two residents (#61 and #197) of six residents revealed for falls and/or accident hazards. The facility census was 102. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, local police department call detail report, self-reported incident (SRI) review, review of prehospital care report summary, emergency department (ED) provider note, and facility policy review the facility failed to develop and implement an effective and individualized pain management program for Resident #147 following a significant change in condition resulting in severe pain that was not treated timely. This affected one resident (#147) of three residents reviewed for pain. The facility census was 102. Actual Harm occurred on 09/04/24 at 3:42 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure meals were served timely. This had the potential to affect 100 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #25 and #197 as not receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under safe and sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all 100 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #25 and #197 did not receive meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of administrative job descriptions and interview the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident which included failure to appropriately manage pressure ulcer prevention, accident prevention and pain management programs, and related quality of care indicators. This had the potential to affect all 102 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, review of survey history from 12/16/22 through 06/05/24, review of approved plans of correction, and review of the State Operations Manual the facility failed to ensure concerns were addressed in a timely manner and failed to ensure their Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program committee thoroughly evaluated, identified areas in need of improvement, and prior deficient practices were being monitored to determine if the plan of correction was being implemented as written and corrections were being sustained. This has the potential to affect all 102 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of facility work orders the facility failed to ensure the facility kitchen had a working garbage disposal. This had the potential to affect 100 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Residents #25 and #197 as not receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to promote an environment that maintained each residents' dignity by serving meal trays with no knives. This affected Residents #20 and #82 and had the potential to affect the remaining 15 residents (#8, #40, #49, #50, #53, #54, #67, #70, #83, #89, #147, #148, #149, #150, and #151) who resided on the 1200 hallway. The facility identified no residents on the 1200 hallway that received nothing by mouth. The facility also failed to ensure Resident #254's urostomy bag was covered with a privacy cover. This affected one resident (#254) of one resident reviewed for catheter care. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment including clean and sanitary tube feed pumps and poles. This affected three residents (#60, #84, and #197) out of five residents reviewed for tube feed, additionally one resident (#13) was affected out of five residents reviewed for a clean and sanitary environment. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure care plans were updated to include new interventions and needs. This affected four residents (#22, #60, #81, and #197) of 35 residents reviewed for care plans, and had the potential to affect all 102 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered and cared for appropriately for Residents #2, #35, and #252. This affected three residents (#2, #35, and #252) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility identified 21 residents (#1, #2, #5, #14, #17, #20, #24, #26, #31, #34, #35, #55, #87, #88, #91, #149, #151, #152, #247, #252 and #253) who used oxygen. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure medications were not kept past the recommended storage dates, failed to ensure medications were not loose in the medication cart, failed to ensure medications were dated when opened, and failed to ensure medications were not expired. This was observed on the three carts (1200, 1300, and 1400) of four medication carts in the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure transmission-based precautions (TBP) were implemented appropriately, oxygen and urostomy was cared for appropriately, hand hygiene was performed and enhanced barrier precautions (EHB) were followed. This affected five residents (Residents #24, #62, #71, #252 and #254) of eight reviewed for infection control and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #60's representative was timely notified after a fall. This affected one resident (#60) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide written notification of the facility's bed hold policy to the resident or the resident representative. This affected one resident (#197) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #252's care plans were comprehensive to include all care needs. This affected one resident (#252) of 35residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans and had the potential to affect all 102 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #84 received therapy and restorative services to help prevent a decline in activity of daily living (ADL). This affected one resident (#84) out of three residents reviewed for therapy services. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #54 was assisted into bed timely. This affected one resident (#54) out of three residents reviewed for dependent care. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care was provided for Resident #197. This affected one resident (#197) out of four residents reviewed for timely incontinence care. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide adequate oversight of nutritional needs regarding weight loss, physician notification, and supplements for Residents #71, #75, #81. This affected three residents (#71, #75 and #81) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure competent nursing staff as evidenced by a nurse leaving Resident #62, who was cognitively impaired with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), flaccid hemiplegia, and a history of medication refusals, with a cup of pills to take to take independently. This affected one resident (#62) of 47 sampled residents. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure parameters were in place for the administration of pain medications for Resident #22. This affected one resident (Resident #22) of five reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of manufacturer instructions, and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error for Resident #60 and Resident #149. This affected one resident (#60) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and one resident (#149) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed timely notify the physician of lab results for Resident #81. This affected one resident (#81) of one resident reviewed for laboratory and diagnostic services. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure appealing and palatable food was served to Resident #45 and #152. This affected two residents (#45 and #152) out of nine residents reviewed for food and nutrition, and had the potential to affect 100 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Resident #25 and #197 did not receive meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had the required assistive devices to aid in maintaining independence while eating. This affected one resident (Resident #81) of nine residents reviewed for food/nutrition. The facility identified two residents (#46 and #81) who required assistive devices while eating. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure resident records reflected Resident #61 leaving and returning from the hospital. This affected one resident (#61) of 36 residents reviewed for accurate documentation. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure all residents were offered and received the influenza vaccine. This affected two residents (Residents #7 and #255) of five reviewed for vaccinations. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure all residents were offered the COVID-19 vaccine. This affected two residents (Residents #7 and #255) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner and failed to ensure a sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 98 residents in the facility who receive food from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#16) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain privacy for the medical records of Residents #26 and #46. This affected two residents (#26 and #46) of three residents reviewed for confidentiality of records. This had the potential to affect all 99 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility menus and spreadsheets, observation and interview, the facility failed to follow menus as written and failed to offer appropriate portion sizes of foods on the menu to ensure residents received adequate nutrition. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen excluding one resident (Resident #16) the facility identified as eating nothing by mouth. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure palatable foods were served at meals. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen excluding one resident (Resident #16) who the facility identified as eating nothing by mouth. The facility census was 97.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely assistance was provided with incontinence care for one (Resident #25) of three residents reviewed for incontinence. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to identify and address an area of skin impairment in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #25) of ten residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to timely assess a resident with a history of falls for continued fall risk or need for interventions and failed to ensure another resident's fall interventions were implemented in accordance with physician orders. This affected two (Residents #63 and #98) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to monitor and ensure a resident's catheter bag was positioned appropriately to decrease risks associated with urinary tract infections. This affected one (Resident #12) of three residents reviewed for urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of physician orders, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders and failed to ensure medications were not expired while preparing them for administration. This affected one (Resident #72) of eight residents observed for medication administration. Three errors were identified out of 33 opportunities resulting in a 9.09% medication error rate. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medical record was complete in regard to a fall and unaccompanied exit of the facility and to ensure a resident's orders were transcribed timely. This affected two (Residents #12 and #62) of 14 residents whose medical records were reviewed. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of facility policy and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized pressure ulcer prevention and treatment program to ensure interventions were initiated timely to prevent the development of pressure ulcers and/or to ensure adequate treatments were in place to promote healing. This affected four residents (Resident #9, #10, #20, and #81) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 83. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #72's catheter was inserted timely. This affected one resident (Resident #72) out of three residents reviewed for catheter care. Actual Harm occurred on 11/15/22 at 5:37 P.M. when Resident #72 pulled his indwelling catheter out causing redness, irritation and bleeding, and the catheter was not reinserted until Resident #72 experienced abdominal pain and tenderness, was transported to the local Emergency Department on 11/16/22 at 1:57 P.M, a catheter was inserted in the Emergency Department and approximately a liter of urine was returned.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely implement nutritional interventions for residents who experienced weight loss or were at risk of compromised nutrition. This affected four residents (Residents #38, #44, #66, and #80) out of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 83. Actual harm occurred on 11/30/22 when Resident #44 was assessed to have a significant weight loss of 40 pounds (22.5 percent) from Resident #44's previous weight on 10/14/22 of 177 pounds and the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were implemented to prevent and address the weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to promote an environment that maintained each residents' dignity by serving meal trays with disposable spoons and no knives. This affected Resident #4 but had the potential to affect 82 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #142 as not receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to secure and confidential medical records by allowing state tested nursing assistants (STNAs) to use their own personal computers to chart in the electronic medical record (EMR). This had the potential to affect all 83 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to provide timely incontinence care to Resident #191, provide sufficient restorative services to Resident #48, #50, #62 and #191, provide pain medications timely to Resident #2, and timely answer resident call lights. This had the potential to affect all 83 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided well balanced meals and failed to honor the residents' food and beverage preferences. This affected Residents #4,#6, #26, #48, #61, #66, #77, and #80 and had the potential to affect 82 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #142 as not receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview ,review of dietary schedules, and review of the Facility Wide Assessment, the facility failed to consistently provide adequate number of dietary staff to ensure a clean kitchen and dumpster area. This had the potential to affect all 83 residents who resided in the facility, excluding Residents #142 who did not receive nutrition by mouth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a standardized menu was followed and failed to ensure menus were distributed or posted for residents to make food choices. This had the potential to after all 82 residents receiving meals from the facility, specifically affected Residents #2, #4, #61, and #80. The facility identified Resident #142 as not receiving meals from the facility. The census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature and an acceptable palatability. This had the potential to affect 82 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Resident #142 as receiving no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to obtain or accommodate food and beverage preferences and failed to provide options of similar nutritive value to residents who chose not to eat the food that was initially served or who requested a different meal choice. This affected three (Resident #4, #61 and #80) but had the potential to affect all 82 residents receiving a meal from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident # 143 as not receiving food from the kitchen. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide drinks consistent with residents' preferences. This affected three (Residents #4, #61 and #80) but had the potential to affect all 82 residents who received beverages. The facility identified Resident # 142 as not receiving any beverages by mouth. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to provide a substantial snack when there was greater than a 14-hour lapse between the evening meal and breakfast. This had the potential to affect 82 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #142 as not receiving meals from the kitchen. Facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the kitchen area was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and food was labeled and dated in a manner to prevent contamination and/or spoilage. This had the potential to affect all 82 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident # 142 as not receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility did not maintain garbage and refuse properly in an area free of surrounding litter. This had the potential to affect all 83 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation and record reviews, the facility failed to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This affected all residents of the facility. The census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure to ensure the medical director coordinated medical care and helped to implement and evaluate resident care policies that reflect current professional standards of practice. This affected all residents of the facility. The census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete medical records related to dialysis treatment for 14 residents (Resident #8, #24, #35, #38, #53, #57, #62, #66, #67, #74, #79, #80, #83, #294) and oxygen tube changes for Resident #2, and failed to ensure resident medical records were maintained in a confidential and secure manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #29 and #30 were placed on contact isolation related to urine culture results, failed to ensure Resident #29's antibiotics were ordered timely, failed to ensure Resident #2's oxygen tubing was changed as ordered, failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene during medication administration, failed to ensure Resident #22's catheter was maintained in a sanitary manner to prevent infection, and failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was used when care was provided for a resident on contact precautions (Resident #33) to potentially prevent the spread of Clostridium Difficile infections. This had the potential to affect all 83 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #2, #15, #16, #25, #58 and #81 were administered oxygen per physician orders. This affected six residents (Resident's #2, #15, #16, #25, #58 and #81) out of seven reviewed for oxygen administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility for residents who required dialysis. This affected all 14 residents (Resident #8, #24, #35, #38, #53, #57, #62, #66, #67, #74, #79, #80, #83, #294) of 14 residents reviewed for dialysis at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prepare food in a form to meet the individual needs of residents. This affected Residents (#9, #10,#20, #27, #35, and #81) who were on a mechanically altered diet and Residents (#9 and #35) who were on nectar thick liquids. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to assure the residents received the appropriate therapeutic diet as prescribed. This affected Resident #80, and had the potential to affect all 74 residents on a therapeutic diet. The facility identified 82 residents as receiving a meal from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #142 as not receiving a meal from the kitchen. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received restorative nursing services as recommended by the therapy department. This affected four residents (Resident #48, #50, #62 and #191) of four residents reviewed for restorative nursing services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #56's preferences regarding bathing were honored. This affected one resident (Residents #36) out of three residents reviewed for choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #10 was free from physical and mental abuse. This affected one resident (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for allegations of physical, emotional and verbal abuse towards Resident #10 by a staff member. This affected one resident (Resident #10) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed for a Resident #4 and #36. This affected two residents (Resident #4 and Resident #36) out of 45 residents reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were comprehensive to address the needs of Residents #24, #83 and #294. This affected three residents (Residents #24, #83 and #294) of three residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #44), who was Spanish speaking and had impaired vision, was provided a functional communication system. This affected one resident (Resident #44) of two residents reviewed for communication difficulty and/or sensory problems.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #36 and Resident #191 received timely incontinence care. This affected two residents (Resident #36 and Resident #191) of three residents reviewed for incontinence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2 received her pain medication per physician orders. This affected one resident (Resident #2) out of three residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #24's physician was able to be contacted for Resident #24's change in condition. This affected one resident (Resident #24) out of three reviewed for emergency physician services.
28 fire safety citations on file: 10 on May 20, 2026, 12 on September 25, 2024, 6 on December 16, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 25, 2024 | Fine | $187,369 |
| September 25, 2024 | Payment Denial | 98 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) | 3.74 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.22 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.19 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 55.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.1% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.70 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 3.96 on weekdays and 3.22 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.61 in April to June 2025 to 3.74 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 | 3.74 | 0.62 | 3.96 | 3.22 | 5.7% | 0 of 90 | 101 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.61 | 3.68 | 2.95 | 5.9% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.49 | 0.60 | 3.69 | 2.98 | 9.0% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.61 | 0.72 | 3.81 | 3.12 | 7.2% | 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.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 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 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.4 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Beeghly Oaks Center for Rehabilitation & Healing's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.3% 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. 44 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 74 eligible stays.
7.8% 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. 35 eligible stays.
44.6% 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. 83 residents counted.
1.6% 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. 123 residents counted.
3.8% 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. 123 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. 31 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: BEEGHLY NURSING LLC. CMS links this home to David Oberlander, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quartex LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 08/15/2018 |
| Sam Investments LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 18% | 08/15/2018 |
| Fink, Boruch | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 02/03/2018 |
| Friedman, Joseph | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 05/18/2018 |
| Oberlander, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 08/15/2018 |
| Oberlander, Sholem | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 18% | 08/15/2018 |
| Steinberg, Bernard | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 05/18/2018 | |
| Fink, Berel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/18/2018 | |
| Fink, Boruch | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Friedman, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Oberlander, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Byf Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/02/2018 | |
| Fink, Boruch | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Valiquette, Ryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2021 | |
| Neginah Orchestra LLC | General partnership interest | Organization | 08/15/2018 | |
| Steinberg Family Trust | General partnership interest | Organization | 08/15/2018 | |
| Byf Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/20/2025 | |
| Neginah Orchestra LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/05/2025 | |
| Quartex LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/18/2018 | |
| Steinberg Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/05/2025 | |
| Rich, Frank | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/18/2018 | |
| Steinberg, Bernard | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/24/2025 | |
| Valiquette, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/18/2018 |
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.