1302 Millville Avenue, Hamilton, OH 45013 · Butler County · (513) 867-4101
79 certified beds, about 63 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1972
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365277 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 25, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since October 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $135,680 in the last three years; the largest was $135,680, and the latest is dated November 25, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.23 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.82 of those hours.
59.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Exceptional Living Centers, an affiliated group of 10 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of resident fund accounts, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain resident funds accounts using basic accounting principles and failed to ensure residents received a copy of their resident funds account quarterly statements. This affected six (Residents #2, #4, #27, #32, #47 and #62) of seven residents reviewed for resident funds accounts. The facility census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of resident funds accounts, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents that received Medicaid benefits or their representatives when the amount in the resident's resident funds account reached $200 less than the supplemental security income (SSI) resource limit. This affected six (Residents #2, #4, #27, #32, #47 and #62) of seven residents reviewed for resident funds accounts. The facility census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of resident fund account records, ,staff interview, review of facility self-reported incidents (SRIs), and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure money was not misappropriated from resident funds accounts and items were not purchased using resident funds without authorization. This affected five (Resident #2, #4, #27, #32, and #62) of seven residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident funds. The facility census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of resident fund accounts, resident interview, staff interview, review of facility Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to timely report allegations of misappropriation of resident funds. This affected five (Residents #2, #0, #27, #32, and #62) of seven residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident funds. The facility census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of resident fund accounts, review of facility self-reported incidents (SRIs), staff interview, resident interview, review of employee records, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of misappropriation including investigating thoroughly investigating all alleged perpetrators. This affected five (Residents #2, #4, #27, #32, and #62) of seven residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident funds. The facility census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of emergency medical services (EMS) run report, staff interview, EMS interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident do not resuscitate comfort care (DNRCC) orders were implemented appropriately. This affected one (Resident #67) of two residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 66 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #19 received prompt dental care services. This resulted in Actual Harm when Resident #19, who had persistent dental pain, developed a dental infection and had significant weight loss. On 06/19/25 at 6:50 P.M., Resident #19, who was nonverbal, screamed loudly for most of the shift due to dental pain and was unable to be redirected. On 06/20/25, Resident #19 ' s oral intake decreased related to ongoing dental pain. Resident #19 was seen by the nursing staff on 06/25/25 for continued behaviors including a decrease in oral intake, biting on her fingers, and was suspected of having a dental infection. Resident #19 was started on Augmentin, an antibiotic, related to a tooth infection. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was served in an appetizing manner. This affected two (Residents #86 and #16) and had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure beverage preferences and requests were honored. This affected one (Resident #16) of one residents reviewed for food preferences and had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, served and stored in a manner to protect against the potential spread of foodborne illness. This affected one (Resident #10) and had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and review of the Resident Council meeting minutes, the facility failed to respond and address resident concerns expressed in the Resident Council meetings. This affected five (#56, #14, #44, #39 and #67) of the five residents interviewed during Resident Council meeting. The facility total census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, care conference summary report review, care plan review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were provided on a quarterly basis with the Resident and/or Representative and failed to ensure care plans were updated timely. This affected five (#30, #07, #06, #03, and #55) of the eight residents reviewed for care plans. The facility also failed to ensure care plans were updated timely when a change in condition occurred. This affected two (#19 and #45) of the eight residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in a sanitary manner. This affected one (Resident #19) of four residents observed for medication administration. Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow physician ordered transmission-based precautions. This affected three (Residents #19, # 85, #81) of four residents reviewed for transmission-based precautions. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility also failed to ensure staff practiced appropriate hand hygiene during delivery of meal trays. This affected three (Residents #31, #65 and #86) and had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, family interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure responsible parties and/or physicians were notified of significant weight loss. This affected three (#45, #61 and #19) of the three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman's Office after residents were discharged to the hospital. This affected three residents (#02, #64 and #19) of the four residents reviewed for hospital discharge. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide needed personal care for three (#07, #41 and #55) of the three residents reviewed for personal care. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed provide tube feedings as ordered. This affected one (Resident #19) of four residents reviewed for unplanned weight loss. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #08) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered pneumococcal vaccines as required. This affected one (Resident #19) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 75 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the emergency medical services (EMS) run report, review of the hospital record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was adequately prepared for a transfer by ensuring EMS and the hospital was provided with the resident's code status and other pertinent information. This affected one (#100) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. Facility census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to assess and implement a physician ordered treatment for a resident admitted with a pressure ulcer to the coccyx. This affected one (#72) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. Facility census was 71. Findings Include: Record review revealed Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson's, malnutrition and Stage IV (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle, slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed, including undermining and tunneling) pressure ulcer to the coccyx. Resident #72 was discharged on 02/03/24. Record review revealed there was no comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed for Resident #72 due to the residents short stay at the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, review of facility investigation, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided dignity and respect. This affected one (#62) of four residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) assistance to dependent residents. This affected one (#1) of three residents reviewed for ADL's. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure prescribed medications were stored securely. This affected two (#1 and #38) randomly observed residents with medications left unattended/unsecured in the residents room. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure used sharps i.e. needles were disposed of properly. This affected one (#16) of four residents reviewed for sanitary environment. The facility census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to label and date items in the freezer. The facility also failed to keep daily temperatures in the refrigerator on the third floor and failed to keep the freezer clean. This had the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, review of drug manufacturer instructions, and facility Self Administering Medications Policy, the facility failed to store medications securely, dispose of expired medications, and properly label medications. This affected two of fours medication carts. This affected five residents (#20, #27, #43, #54 and #59) on the four north medication cart. The facility identified one resident prescribed insulin and five residents prescribed inhalers on the four north medication cart. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) was provided when skilled services ended and the resident remained at the facility. This affected one (Resident #48) of three residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide written transfer notification to the resident and/or resident's representative when they were hospitalized . This affected three (#27, #30 and #43) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide written bed hold information to the resident and/or resident's representative when the resident was hospitalized . This affected three (#27, #30 and #43) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored and gradual dose reductions were conducted for psychotropic medications. This affected one (Resident #21) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 61.
33 fire safety citations on file: 15 on November 25, 2025, 3 on May 15, 2024, 9 on December 29, 2022, 6 on October 24, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 25, 2025 | Fine | $135,680 |
| November 25, 2025 | Payment Denial | 35 days from December 24, 2025 |
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) | 4.23 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.82 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.72 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.06 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.35 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 59.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.07 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 4.44 on weekdays and 3.72 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.82 in April to June 2025 to 4.23 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 | 4.23 | 0.82 | 4.44 | 3.72 | 5.9% | 0 of 90 | 63 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.16 | 0.69 | 4.36 | 3.62 | 4.2% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.84 | 0.49 | 4.01 | 3.43 | 4.5% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.82 | 0.38 | 3.95 | 3.49 | 5.1% | 0 of 91 | 72 |
| 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 | 13.7 | 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 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 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 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Bradford Place Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.1% 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. 29 eligible stays.
11.8% 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. 35 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. 17 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.
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. 11 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: 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. 16 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: 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. 16 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. 2 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: BRADFORD PLACE CARE CENTER. CMS links this home to Exceptional Living Centers, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical Rehabilitation Centers, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/01/2023 |
| Lexington Health Management LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2023 | |
| Watts, Amy | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Watts, Walter | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Mital, Chetna | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| O'Hara, Scarlett | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Watts, Walter | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Campbell, Brenda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Mital, Chetna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| O'Hara, Scarlett | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Medical Rehabilitation Centers, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/23/2025 | |
| Campbell, Brenda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Mital, Chetna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| O'Hara, Scarlett | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Watts, Walter | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2023 |
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.