1960 Madison Road, Cincinnati, OH 45206 · Hamilton County · (513) 751-5880
99 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365733 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 23, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 45 health citations since January 2020, 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 3.38 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.43 of those hours.
84.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Carecore Health, an affiliated group of 12 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 45 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility documents and policy, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility with the exception of one facility-identified (Resident #61) who did not receive food from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 87 residents. Findings Include:1. Observation on 07/20/26 at 9:08 A.M. of the dry food storage area revealed there was a box of thickened hot chocolate mis with a use by date of 11/02/25 and a box of thickened coffee with a use by date of 02/15/26. Interview on 07/20/26 at 9:17 A.M. with [NAME] #272 verified thickened hot chocolate and thickened coffee were expired and should have been discarded. 2. Observation on 07/20/26 at 9:30 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to conduct adequate infection control surveillance. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of resident discharges and hospitalizations and did not provide bed hold notices. This affected four (Residents #3, #10, #92, and #95) of seven residents reviewed for discharge and hospitalizations. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received showers. This affected four (Residents #51, #1, #9, #65) of 18 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) when therapy services were completed and failed to provide Skilled Nursing Facility/Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF/ABN) notifications. This affected two (Residents #5 and #9) of three residents reviewed for NOMNC and SNF/ABN notices. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate. This affected two (Residents #97 and #106) of 18 residents sampled. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were accurate. This affected one (Resident #51) of 18 residents sampled. The facility census was 87 residents. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 05/28/26 with diagnoses including acute osteomyelitis right ankle and foot, type two diabetes, and urge incontinence. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #51 dated 06/03/26 revealed the resident had intact cognition, was dependent on staff assistance with toileting, and had a urinary catheter. Review of the baseline care plan for Resident #51dated on 05/28/26 revealed the resident was incontinent of bladder but not indicate the presence of a urinary catheter or basic interventions for the resident's catheter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were conducted on a quarterly basis. This affected three residents (Residents #2, #6, and #67) of 18 residents sampled. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure catheter care orders were in place for residents requiring catheter care. This affected one (Resident #5) of two residents with catheters. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent (%). The medication error rate was 11.1 % based on 27 medication opportunities and three medication errors. This affected one (Resident #73) of three residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents' insulin was properly labeled. This affected two (Residents #54 and #30) of 21 facility-identified residents with orders for insulin. The facility census was 87 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident's resident representative of a change in condition or an injury of unknown origin. This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility census was 80. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was reported to the state surveying agency. This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for injury of unknown origins. The facility census was 80. Review of Resident #24's chart revealed Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, Type Two Diabetes Mellitus without complications, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, altered mental status, dysphagia, other toxic encephalopathy, insomnia, essential hypertension, orthostatic hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, unspecified urinary incontinence, full incontinence of feces and gastrostomy status. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin. This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for injury of unknown origins. The facility census was 80. Review of Resident #24's chart revealed Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with unspecified dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, Type Two Diabetes Mellitus without complications, acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified vein, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, hyperlipidemia, altered mental status, dysphagia, other toxic encephalopathy, insomnia, essential hypertension, orthostatic hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, depression, unspecified urinary incontinence, full incontinence of feces and gastrostomy status. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor a resident's swollen upper lip with dark purple discoloration as ordered by the Nurse Practitioner (NP). This affected one (#24) resident out of three residents reviewed for monitoring resident conditions. The facility census was 80. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of hospital paperwork, staff interview, policy review and review of online medical resources, the facility failed to monitor and record resident bowel functioning. This resulted in Actual Harm for Resident #76 whose last documented bowel movement occurred on 11/19/25. Resident #76 was subsequently treated in the hospital for a fecal impaction on 01/25/26. This affected one (Resident #76) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the facility menu and dietary spreadsheets, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed and portion sizes were served as planned on dietary spreadsheets. This had the potential to affect 76 residents in the facility. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at the appropriate temperature and was palatable. This had the potential to affect 76 of 78 residents in the facility. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hair restraints in the kitchen, failed to ensure staff washed their hands upon entering the kitchen and before handling food, and failed to ensure food was stored in a manner to protect against the potential spread of foodborne illness. This had the potential to affect 76 of 78 residents residing in the facility. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff had access to adequate handwashing facilities in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect 76 residents. The facility identified two (Residents #49 and #50) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure adequate care was provided to residents. This affected two (Residents #28 and #77) of four residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate and updated. This affected three (Residents #76, #77, and #84) of four residents reviewed for documentation. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) while providing care to residents in Enhanced Barriers Precautions (EBP). This affected one (Resident #71) and had the potential to affect 13 facility-identified residents with orders for OBP. The facility census was 78 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure the phones were answered during the nighttime hours. This affected one (Resident #45) of three residents reviewed for communication with the staff via telephone. This had the potential to affect all of the residents. The facility census was 73 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was provided in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #36) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 73 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the appropriate level of supervision during resident transfers using the sit to stand lift. This affected one (Resident #36) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 73 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, resident interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the temperature in resident rooms was satisfactory. This affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for the physical environment. The facility census was 73 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to use the proper lift for resident transfers. This affected one (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for lift transfers. The facility census was 81 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff with transferring out of bed received timely assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). This affected one (Resident #3) of one resident reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents who were at risk for developing pressure ulcer were turned and repositioned every two to three hours per their care plan interventions and failed to complete treatments to the right heel ordered by the physician at the hospital. This affected three (#10, #18, and #72) three residents reviewed for change of positioning. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's bladder scans were completed for a trial after the indwelling catheter was removed per hospital discharge orders. This affected one (#18) of one resident reviewed for bladder scanning. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered via the physician ordered route. This affected one (#31) of five residents observed for medication administration observation. The facility census was 69.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored. This affected two (#22 and #19) of five residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, observations, policy review, review of manufacture's recommendations and review of the Centers of Disease Control website, the facility failed to disinfect a glucose monitoring device after usage with an appropriate disinfectant. This had the potential to affect two residents (#13 and #6) residing on the B unit of the second floor who share the glucose monitoring device. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene after removing wound dressing on resident in enhanced barrier precaution. This affected one (#34) out of three residents reviewed for infection control practices. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to have a comprehensive water management plan to prevent water contamination. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The census was 70.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect. This affected one (Resident #28) of one reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and facility policy, facility failed to ensure a resident had access to their call light. This affected one (Resident #71) of three residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure advance directives were documented appropriately. This affected one (#37) out of eight residents reviewed for advance directives. The census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was reported to the state agency. This affected one (#51) of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was thoroughly investigated. This affected one (#51) out of one resident reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans reflected the residents current status and behaviors. This affected one (#70) of one resident reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had access to hearing aids. This affected one (Resident #43) of one resident reviewed for hearing. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper staff assistance with care to prevent falls. This affected one (#66) out of seven residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record, observation, interview, and facility policy, facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for two residents (#328 and #28) of four reviewed for incontinence care. Facility census was 72.
Inspectors wroteReview of facility record, observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to provide supervision when taking medication for one resident (#50) out of four residents reviewed for medication. Facility census was 72.
25 fire safety citations on file: 7 on July 23, 2026, 3 on August 15, 2024, 10 on February 2, 2024, 5 on January 16, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 23, 2026 | Payment Denial | 12 days from March 14, 2026 |
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) | 3.38 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.43 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.83 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.12 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 84.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 88.9% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.59 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 3.51 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 33.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.61 in April to June 2025 to 3.38 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 | 3.38 | 0.43 | 3.51 | 3.05 | 33.3% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.51 | 0.35 | 3.65 | 3.15 | 24.8% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.52 | 0.39 | 3.69 | 3.09 | 21.7% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.61 | 0.32 | 3.82 | 3.07 | 23.6% | 0 of 91 | 69 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 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 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 43.9 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.6 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Carecore at Margaret Hall's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.5% 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. 84 eligible stays.
11.5% 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. 84 eligible stays.
6.5% 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. 61 eligible stays.
32.1% 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. 28 residents counted.
2.2% 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. 46 residents counted.
1.7% 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. 46 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. 8 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: CARECORE AT MARGARET HALL LLC. CMS links this home to Carecore Health, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hertanu, Chaim | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 10/31/2023 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2023 | |
| Carecore Health LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/31/2023 | |
| Gennantonio, Margretta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/31/2023 | |
| Mobley, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Carecore Health LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/31/2023 | |
| Fasten Halberstam LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/31/2023 | |
| Margaret Hall Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/31/2023 | |
| Gennantonio, Margretta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Hertanu, Chaim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/31/2023 | |
| Mobley, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 |
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.