One David N Myers Parkway, Beachwood, OH 44122 · Cuyahoga County · (216) 360-9080
233 certified beds, about 140 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365046 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 8, 2024, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since March 2020, 5 were 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 5.60 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.28 of those hours.
54.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to The Rosenberg Family, an affiliated group of 16 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received his medical records in a timely manner. This affected one resident (Resident #75) our of three residents reviewed for medical record access. The facility census was 152.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #129 received proper incontinence care. This affected one resident (Resident #129) of three residents reviewed for incontinence. The facility census was 152.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to secure and store medications appropriately. This affected one resident (Resident #136) out of three residents reviewed for secured medications. The facility census was 152.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #201's medical record accurately reflected confirmation of the resident's death. This affected one resident (Resident #201) out of three resident reviewed for death in the facility. The facility census was 152.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #146, who was dependent on staff assistance for activities of daily living (ADL), received adequate and proper assistance for dressing, personal hygiene, and incontinence care. This affected one resident (#146) of three residents reviewed for ADL. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to implement adequate and necessary interventions to address Resident #146's constipation through implementation of the facility bowel protocol. This affected one resident (#146) of three residents reviewed for constipation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of witness statements, review of facility incident investigation, review of the medical examiner report, review of the police report, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely injury identification and physician notification and treatment following a fall with fracture for Resident #162. Actual Harm occurred on [DATE] 4:30 P.M. when the facility failed to obtain timely and appropriate imaging (x-ray) for Resident #162 following a fall with injury resulting in a delay in treatment. Following the fall, the resident complained of increased pain, had swelling, an abrasion to the knee and was unable to stand. On [DATE] at 3:15 P.M a new order was written for an x-ray of the area. X-ray results on [DATE] at 9:15 P.M. were positive for a right femur fracture. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to assess Resident #163's wound and obtain appropriate treatment orders upon re-admission from the hospital and failed to complete pressure ulcer treatments as ordered by the physician or nurse practitioner to prevent a decline in the wound resulting in suspected osteomyelitis (serious bone infection). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized fall prevention program to prevent falls, ensure falls were thoroughly investigated and/or ensure residents were safely transferred. Actual harm occurred on 10/03/24 at approximately 11:40 P.M. when Resident #19, who was cognitively impaired, was at high risk for falls and had a history of fall and required substantial or maximal staff assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs), sustained an unwitnessed fall that resulted in displaced fractures of the right seventh through 12th ribs and a non-displaced sternal fracture. Prior to the fall on 10/03/24, Resident #19 had a care planned intervention for staff to check on her between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 12:00 A.M., due to a previous fall in the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all menu items were prepared in advance and menus and/or substitutions were followed for resident meal service. This had the potential to affect all 159 residents receiving meals from the kitchen excluding the seven residents (#44, #46, #97, #110, #111, #137, and #315) the facility identified as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and food committee meeting minutes review, the facility failed to ensure palatable and appealing meals were served. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven Residents (#44, #46, #97, #110, #111, #137, and #315) as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure meals were served in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven Residents (#44, #46, #97, #110, #111, #137, and #315) as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff followed appropriate food safety and handling techniques including equipment cleaning and sanitation, glove use, handwashing, hairnet use. This had the potential to affect all 159 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven residents (#44, #46, #97, #110, #111, #137, and #315) as receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience for Resident #62, Resident #13, Resident #52 and Resident #24. This affected four residents (#62, #13, #52 and #24) out of 12 residents observed eating their meals in the secured unit dining room. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and recipe review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate puree preparation techniques were followed. This had the potential to affect 17 Residents (#17, #37, #42, #53, #62, #63, #74, #79, #80, #86, #88, #98, #105, #106, #113, #132, and #326) the facility identified as requiring a puree textured diet. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record reivew, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified in a timely manner for a change in condition for Resident #162 and for Resident #126. This affected two Residents (#126 and #162) of two reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff the facility failed to follow-up with grievances involving Resident #167 in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#167) of three residents reviewed for grievances. The census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #62, Resident #108 and Resident #79 were assisted with eating their meal. This affected three residents (#62, #108 and #79) out of seven residents reviewed for activity of daily living (ADL) assistance. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure residents received prescribed treatments or application of appliances as prescribed to maintain or prevent a decline in range of motion (ROM). This affected one resident (Resident #27) of one resident reviewed for ROM/mobility. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services were in place for Resident #111's enteral feeding tube. This affected one resident (Resident #111) of one reviewed for tube feeding concerns. The facility identified eleven residents ( #46, #63, #66, #79, #97, #98, #110, #111, #128, #137, and #148) who received enteral tube feedings. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate assessments and monitoring to ensure residents were free from complications before and after dialysis treatments. This affected three residents (Resident #50, Resident #126, and Resident #314) of three residents reviewed for dialysis. The facility identified three residents (#50, #126 and #314) as receiving dialysis. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staff administered Resident #107's insulin as ordered by the physician. This affected one resident (#107) out of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the facility's fall investigations, and interview, the facility failed to ensure documentation was complete and accurate for Resident #15, #19 and #50. This affected three residents (#15, #19, and #50) of 43 records reviewed. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of facility policy and interview the facility failed to maintain infection control standards during care for Resident #107 during medication administration and Resident #111 during gastronomy tube site care. This affected one resident (#107) out of four residents reviewed for medications administration and one resident (#111) out of one resident reviewed for tube feeding. The facility census was 166.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a secure location at all times. This had the potential to affect 40 residents (#1, #6, #7, #10, #12, #13, #15, #16, #19, #22, #24, #27, #30, #36, #37, #46, #51, #60, #62, #65, #67, #69, #77, #79, #85, #88, #91, #99, #103, #105, #106, #107, #110, #118, #119, #123, #130, #132, #147, and #148) residing on [NAME] three unit. The facility census was 150.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interview the facility failed to maintain standard infection control protocol when administrating medications. This affected one (Resident #137) of one resident reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to have daily staffing information posted in a prominent place on 09/05/24. This had the potential to affect all 150 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to provide wound treatment according to physician orders. This affected one (#67) of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 161. Findings Include: Review of Resident #67's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/01/22. Diagnoses included hemiplegia, right heart failure, and unspecified malnutrition. Review of a wound physician assessment, dated 01/03/24, revealed Resident #67 had moisture associated skin damage (MASD) to the buttocks, which had improved since its development on 12/27/23, and measured 3 centimeters (cm) by 1.5 cm with a depth of 0.2 cm. The assessment called for a treatment of honey alginate (a mesh dressing mixed with honey gel) covered by a foam dressing to be changed daily. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, staff interview and review of a fall investigation, the facility failed to provide appropriate monitoring during personal care to prevent a fall. This affected one (#114) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 161. Findings Include: Review of Resident #114's medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, chronic kidney disease, and unspecified dementia. Resident #114 was admitted to hospice on [DATE] and expired in the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #114 was severely cognitively impaired, was dependent on staff for toileting assistance, and needed substantial assistance with turning in bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure all food items were properly stored and served in a manner to prevent contamination, spoilage and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to affect 141 of 141 residents who received meal trays from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident (#108) who received nothing by mouth (NPO status). The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected four residents (#49, #52, #255 and #268) of 142 residents observed for right to dignity and respect. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the failed to ensure meals were served at a palatable temperature. This had the potential to affect 39 residents (#8, #12, #19, #21, #23, #27, #28, #29, #31, #31, #34, #35, #36, #39, #45, #46, #53, #69, #72, #77, #81, #82, #84, #86, #88, #89, #90, #97, #98, #100, #102, #104, #109, #114, #117, #123, #125, #128, and #129) of 39 residents who resided on unit MY2 on the second floor. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure meals were served in a timely manner according to the designated meal times for the facility. This had the potential to affect 39 residents (#8, #12, #19, #21, #23, #27, #28, #29, #31, #31, #34, #35, #36, #39, #45, #46, #53, #69, #72, #77, #81, #82, #84, #86, #88, #89, #90, #97, #98, #100, #102, #104, #109, #114, #117, #123, #125, #128, and #129) of 39 residents who resided on unit MY2 on the second floor. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy review, review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Considerations for Preventing Spread of COVID-19, and interview the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices/procedures to prevent the spread of infection including COVID-19. This had the potential to affect eight residents (#17, #64, #80, #136, #259, #262, #263 and #265) who resided on the same unit as Resident #261 who was in isolation for COVID-19. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to obtain signed authorization with a witness not connected to the facility to open resident accounts. This affected two residents (#36 and #121) of five residents reviewed for personal resident fund accounts. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate care plans had been established for Resident #11. This affected one resident (#11) of 29 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to administer insulin per physician order and complete blood sugar testing related to the administration of insulin for Resident #66. This affected one resident (#66) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. In addition, based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate care and treatment of a burn-related wound for Resident #90. This affected one resident (#90) of five residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to provide adequate care and services to identify, assess and/or provide treatments to promote healing of a pressure ulcer for Resident #19 and Resident #99. This affected two residents (#19 and #99) of five residents reviewed for wound care and/or pressure ulcers. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to utilize proper transfer technique for Resident #258 and Resident #19, and failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented to mitigate fall risks for Resident #126. This affected three residents (#258, #19 and #126) of four residents reviewed for accidents/hazards. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to timely collect a urine specimen for suspicion of a urinary tract infection for Resident #19 and failed to ensure physician's orders were in place for Foley catheter care for Resident #11. This affected two residents (#11 and #19) of three residents reviewed for Foley catheter care. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended at the residents bedside. This affected three residents (#69, #84 and #129) of 142 residents observed for medication storage. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure adaptive equipment was provided with meals. This affected one resident (#40) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent a fall with subsequent head injury for Resident #46 and failed to ensure a new intervention was added to prevent further injury related to Resident #84 banging her left hand on a transfer bar. Actual harm occurred on 02/24/20 when Resident #46, was left unsupervised in the dining room, and was found on the floor with her head in a pool of blood. Resident #46 sustained bruising and a 0.1 centimeter (cm) x 0.1 cm open area to the forehead for which she was sent to the hospital for treatment. This affected two of five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 222.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and medical record review the facility failed to ensure consistent adequate staffing to meet the care needs of residents residing on the secured dementia unit. Actual harm occurred on 02/24/20 when Resident #46, was left unsupervised in the dining room, and was found on the floor with her head in a pool of blood. Resident #46 sustained bruising and a 0.1 centimeter (cm) x 0.1 cm open area to the forehead for which she was sent to the hospital for treatment. This affected one (Resident #46) of five residents reviewed for accidents and had the potential to affect 13 additional residents (Residents #18, #22, #31, #36, #47, #60, #71, #78, #84, #131, #149, #167 and #208) currently residing on the secured dementia unit. The facility census was 222.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food was served in a sanitary manner. This affected three residents (#39, #49, and #276) in the small dining room on the 100 unit and had the potential to affect 52 residents (Residents #1, #39, #40, #49, #50, #80, #81, #82, #114, #135, #136, #144, #145, #151, #164, #166, #178, #180, #182, #185, #190, #194,#195, #212, #214, #215, #216, #220, #274, #275, #276, #277, #278, #279, #280, #281, #282, #283, #284, #285, #286, #287, #288, #289, #290, #291, #292, #293, #294, #296, #297, and #298) currently residing on the first floor. The facility census was 244.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #92's call light was within reach. This affected one of 36 sampled residents. The facility census was 222.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure interventions were in place for Resident #219's pressure ulcers as ordered. This affected one of seven residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents #35, #41, #78, #170, #190, #200, and #219). The facility identified 16 residents as having pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy on hand hygiene the facility failed to ensure staff washed or cleansed their hands between the dirty and clean phases of dressing changes to prevent potential cross-contamination. This affected three (Residents #34, #170, and #219) of four residents observed for dressing changes (Residents #34, #42, #170, and #219). The facility census was 222.
29 fire safety citations on file: 17 on November 8, 2024, 5 on October 24, 2023, 7 on March 5, 2020.
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) | 5.60 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.28 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.35 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.82 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.50 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.2% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 37.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.98 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 6.12 on weekdays and 4.35 on weekends, 29% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.33 in April to June 2025 to 5.60 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 | 5.60 | 1.28 | 6.12 | 4.35 | 2.1% | 0 of 90 | 140 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.35 | 1.21 | 5.64 | 4.63 | 3.1% | 0 of 92 | 138 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.13 | 1.28 | 5.45 | 4.32 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.33 | 1.31 | 5.58 | 4.70 | 1.8% | 0 of 91 | 139 |
| 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 | 13.3 | 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 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.3 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.3 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Daughters of Miriam Center for Nursing & Rehabilit's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (44.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.2% this home
Worse than 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. 147 eligible stays.
12.1% 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. 136 eligible stays.
5.8% 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. 81 eligible stays.
71.4% 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. 49 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 70 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 70 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. 25 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: DAUGHTERS OF MIRIAM CENTER FOR NURSING & REHABILITATION LLC. CMS links this home to The Rosenberg Family, a group of 16 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenberg, Avraham | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 12/19/2023 |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 12/19/2023 |
| 27080 LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 12/19/2023 | |
| Rosenberg, Avraham | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| 27080 LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 12/19/2023 | |
| Rosenberg, Avraham | 5% or greater security interest | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | 5% or greater security interest | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Lesher, Elizabeth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Tamaskar, Ranjit | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| 27080 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/19/2023 | |
| Lesher, Elizabeth | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Rosenberg, Avraham | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Tamaskar, Ranjit | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/19/2023 |
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.