907 Aurora Rd, Sagamore Hills, OH 44067 · Summit County · (330) 468-2273
99 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365746 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 24, 2025, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since October 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.32 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.39 of those hours.
50.0% 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn for Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) during medication administration via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for Resident #83. This affected one (Resident #83) five residents reviewed for medication administration had the potential to affect all residents on Registered Nurse (RN) #509's assignment, who had EBP's to include (Residents #3, #12, #35, and #36). The facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained during perineal care for Resident #94. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code the preadmission screen and resident review (PASRR) status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Residents #43 and #82. This affected two (Residents #43 and #82) of three residents identified by the facility as having a level two mental illness and/or an intellectual disability. The facility census was 80.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), record review and review of the facility policies, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unauthorized video recordings by staff. This affected one resident (#4) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #6 and Resident #50 were free from resident to resident sexual abuse. This affected two residents (#6 and #50) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Actual physical and/or psychosocial harm, applying the reasonable person concept, occurred on 06/05/24 to Resident #50, a resident with impaired cognition, when Resident #101 who had a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors without care planned interventions in place, placed his hand down Resident #50's incontinence brief (an incident of sexual abuse). Following the incident, Resident #6 was visibly crying and shaking with a noted change by family on 06/06/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to report a change in condition to Resident #50's responsible party and physician, when the resident was sexually abused and was agitated and crying. This affected one resident (Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for notification of change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement there abuse prohibition policy after an allegation of abuse was made to protect the residents, thoroughly investigation the allegation, and report the allegations and findings to the State agency. This finding affected two residents (Residents #6 and Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely report allegations of sexual abuse to the Administrator and State agency. This finding affected two residents (Residents #6 and Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of resident to resident sexual abuse for Resident #6 and Resident #50. This affected two residents (Resident 6 and Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for Resident #100's Intravenous (IV) medication. This affected one residents (Resident #100) out of three residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to report a change in condition to Resident #275's responsible party and physician, who had bruising to the left side of her neck. This affected one resident (Resident #275) of two residents reviewed for notification of change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to timely report and investigate an injury of unknown origin for Resident #275. This affected one resident (Resident #275) of two residents reviewed for injuries of unknown origin.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Resident #30 and Resident #66. This affected two residents (Resident #30 and Resident #60) of seven residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive baseline care plan for Resident #275 to include care for bruising and anticoagulant therapy. This affected one resident (Resident #275) of three residents reviewed for baseline care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for Resident #67's pain and Resident #66's pain and infection. This affected one resident (Resident #66) of three residents reviewed for infections and two residents (Resident #66 and #67) of five reviewed for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to update the care plan for Resident #274 to include her missing eye glasses. This affected one resident (Resident #274) of five residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor Resident #275's change in condition related to bruising. This affected one resident (Resident #275) of three residents reviewed for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assist Resident #274 in replacing lost eye glasses to help maintain vision. This affected one resident (Resident #274) of one resident reviewed for vision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #42's chronic pain was addressed in a timely manner. This affected one resident (Resident #42) of five residents reviewed for medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly store and secure medications for Resident #30 and Resident #67. This affected two residents (Resident #30 and #67) of two residents reviewed for medication storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review or interview, the facility failed to ensure the Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy reflected all staff were to be checked against the Ohio Nurse Aide Registry as required in the current regulatory language. This finding had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen. This affected all residents who take food by mouth. The facility identified two residents (Resident's #52 and #80) that did not receive food by mouth. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop individualized care plans for Resident's #30, #34, #59, #66, #76 and #80. This affected six residents of 41 Residents (#3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #12, #13, #15, #17, #19, #23, #24, #26, #27, #29, #30, #34, #38, #49, #51, #54, #55, #56, #57, #59, #63, #64, #65, #66, #75, #76, #78, #79, #80, #82, #83, #84, #282 and #283) records reviewed for individualized plans of care. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure privacy was provided for during medication administration. This affected one (Resident #80) of four residents (Resident #34, #36, #80 and #86) observed for medication administration. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #54 was monitored for a reddened rash under the resident's bilateral breasts and failed to ensure coordination of Resident #76's code status. This finding affected one (Resident #54) of two residents reviewed for general skin conditions and one (Resident #76) of three residents reviewed for hospice. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure impaired skin areas were identified, assessed and treatments were put in place as ordered for Residents #29 and 30. This affected two of three residents (Resident #29, #30 and #34) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered properly through a naso-gastric tube. This affected Resident #80, one of four residents (Residents #34, #36, #80 and #86) observed for medication administration, with a facility census of 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure the physician acted upon pharmacist recommendation timely for Residents #29 and #80. This affected two of six Residents (#17, #29, #49, #56, #66 and #80) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were held as ordered based vital sign parameters for Resident #66. This affected one of six residents (Resident #17, #29, #49, #56, #66 and #80) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. The error rate was 10.7% with three errors in 28 opportunities, affecting Residents #34 and #80. This affected two of four residents (Residents #34, #36, #80 and #86) observed for medication administration, with a facility census of 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate assessment in the record of Resident #66 regarding a transfer to the hospital. This affected one of three residents (Residents #27, #66 and #84) reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #65 and #79's room and bedding was clean and sanitary. This finding affected two (Residents #65 and #79) of twenty-seven residents residing on the 100 hall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure three residents were free from flying pests. This finding affected three (Residents #33, #65 and #79) of twenty-seven residents residing on the 100 hall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse staffing information accurately reflected the correct date and staffing ratios. This finding had the potential to affect all 86 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure garbage was disposed of/stored in sanitary conditions to prevent the harborage of pests. This had the potential to affect all 86 residents in the facility.
16 fire safety citations on file: 5 on July 24, 2025, 1 on December 22, 2022, 10 on October 3, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.32 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.39 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.77 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.99 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.94 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 22.2% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.01 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 3.54 on weekdays and 2.77 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.32 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 | 3.32 | 0.39 | 3.54 | 2.77 | 3.4% | 0 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.37 | 0.43 | 3.61 | 2.77 | 3.2% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.41 | 0.35 | 3.63 | 2.87 | 1.6% | 0 of 92 | 86 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.36 | 3.73 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 85 |
| 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 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.3 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.2 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Brentwood Health Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.3% 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. 189 eligible stays.
11.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 204 eligible stays.
6.2% 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. 155 eligible stays.
55.5% 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. 101 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 131 residents counted.
2.0% 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. 131 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. 66 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: BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE ENTERPRISES.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classen, Brent | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 96% | 10/01/2002 |
| Classen, Brent | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2002 | |
| Classen, Brent | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2002 |
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.