8 East Park Circle, Brook Park, OH 44142 · Cuyahoga County · (216) 267-7229
57 certified beds, about 50 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365731 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 28, 2024, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 44 health citations since May 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $84,417 in the last three years; the largest was $48,822, and the latest is dated October 14, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.08 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.34 of those hours.
72.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Lionstone Care, an affiliated group of 24 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 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of staff statements, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective pressure ulcer program to ensure wound care was provided to prevent a decline Resident #150's wound status. Actual Harm occurred beginning on 07/24/25 when Resident #150 returned from a hospitalization and wound care orders to treat a chronic right heel wound were not transcribed into the facility's electronic health record (EHR) for implementation. Between 07/24/25 and 08/20/25, Resident #150 had no wound care orders in place and had no documented wound dressing changes recorded. Resident #150 was seen by Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #706 on 08/20/25 who noted the wound had deteriorated and had an increase in wound exudate. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were notified in writing of a room move. This affected three residents (#110, #115, #117) of three residents reviewed for room moves. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the shower on the [NAME] hallway in good working condition. This had the potential to affect 11 residents (#7, #15, #22, #24, #33, #35, #38, #40, #43, #45, and #47) who used the [NAME] Hallway shower. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for Resident #51. This affected one resident (#51) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a treatment was timely initiated for treatment of Resident #36's yeast infection. This affected one resident (#36) of three residents reviewed prompt and adequate care. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the medical record, review of manufacturer's instructions, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the air mattress for Resident #10 was set at the appropriate weight for him. This affected one resident (Resident #10) of three residents reviewed for preventative interventions in place. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of the hospital records, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly care for the feeding tube for Resident #10 to prevent mold from forming within the tube. This affected one resident (#10) of three residents reviewed for feeding tubes. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), and policy review, the facility failed to timely investigate and report allegations of misappropriation to the State Survey Agency. This affected one (#5) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 47.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, hospital record review, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely evaluation, physician notification and treatment following a fall with fracture for Resident #205. Actual Harm occurred for Resident #205 on 10/21/24 at 7:19 P.M. when the facility received results of a STAT (immediate) x-ray indicating the resident had a left elbow fracture but failed to seek medical intervention or treatment for the resident. The nurse practitioner (NP) was notified of the results on 10/22/24 at 8:42 A.M. at which time an order was obtained to transfer the resident to the hospital. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen and further failed to ensure male staff with beards wore hair restraints while in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all 50 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary and safe environment. This had the potential to affected all 50 residents residing in the facility. The facility census 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure grievances during resident council meetings related to evening snacks not being distributed were responded to timely and appropriately. This affected eight residents (#10, #11, #21, #22, #32 #37, #44 and #52) who attended the resident council group meeting, and one resident (#36) reviewed for food. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 09/09/24 with diagnoses including recurrent E. Coli, striatonigral degeneration, obstructive and reflux uropathy, type two diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypothyroidism, atherosclerotic heart disease, occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery, aortic ectasia, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and panic disorder. Upon admission, Resident #19 presented with an indwelling urinary catheter related to the diagnoses of obstructive and reflux uropathy, a wound to her right lower extremity, and blanching in the perineal area. Review of the physician's order dated 09/10/24 indicated once daily wound care instructions for the right lower extremity wound and the open area at the intergluteal cleft. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident funds were conveyed timely upon a discharge or death. This affected one resident (#102) of one resident reviewed for personal funds conveyance upon death or discharge. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 02/27/21 with diagnoses including cerebral infraction, a stroke affecting the right dominant side, dementia, aphasia, contracture of the right hand, atrial fibrillation, and legionnaires disease. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20 had impaired cognition and required substantial to maximum assistance with showers and dressing. Review of the plan of care dated 09/24/24 revealed Resident #20 was recovering from legionnaires disease. Interventions included notifying the guardian and physician. In addition to assessing the resident's respiratory status. Review of the progress note dated 08/23/24 at 4:15 P.M. revealed Resident #20 was sent out to the hospital by emergency medical services (911) per physician order. Note dated 08/31/24 at 6:30 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were implemented and completed for Residents #7 and #204. This affected two residents (#7 and #204) of 17 sample residents reviewed for assessments. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a required Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment upon Resident #30's discharge from the facility. This affected one resident (#30) of two residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents who required staff assistance with baths/showers received needed care. This affected two (#22 and #51) of five residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of hospital documents, staff documents and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an accurate weight was obtained to monitor nutritional status for a resident at risk for significant weight loss. This affected one (#201) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to accurately document and effectively manage resident's pain. This affected one (#204) of two residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of pharmacy recommendations, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed in a timely manner. This affected one (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication orders had an end date. This affected one (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of manufacturer's instructions and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors during insulin administration. This affected one (#2) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #30 received timely and adequate dental services. This affected one resident (Resident #30) out of three residents reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the hospital discharge documents and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure effective communication between attending physicians and administration to ensure adequate and appropriate resident care. This affected one (#20) of one resident reviewed for coordination of care. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility assessment and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment contained all required information. This had the potential to affect all 50 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #99's received assistance with activities daily living (ADLs) to maintain adequate and necessary personal and oral hygiene. Actual harm occurred on 06/21/24 when Resident #99, who was totally dependent on staff assistance for ADLs, did not receive sufficient hygienic care and developed maggots in her mouth and nose, requiring hospitalization. This affected one resident (#99) of three residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility census was 47.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility Appointment and Transportation Form the facility failed to ensure Resident #53's frequent urinary tract infections were comprehensively assessed, care planned, and treated timely to assist in preventing re-occurring infection. This affected one resident (Resident #53) out of three residents reviewed for urinary tract infections. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) log, personnel record review, court docket review, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and procedure regarding reference checks. This had the potential to affect all residents who resided in the facility. The census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, closed medical record review, review of pest control invoices and interview, the facility failed to treat Resident #56 and Resident #57's power wheelchairs with respect. This affected two ( #56 and #57) of three residents reviewed for personal property. The census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide an orderly discharge for former Resident #56. This affected one (Resident #56) of three former residents reviewed for discharging against medical advice (AMA). The census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, infection control log review and interview, the facility to timely obtain lab services for Resident #43. This affected one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for infections. The census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website review, pest control invoices review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to eradicate bed bugs in a resident room prior to Resident #60 being admitted to the room. This affected one (Resident #60) of eight residents reviewed for bed bugs. The census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure opened food products were dated and labeled. This had the potential to affect 43 of 45 residents receiving food from the kitchen. The facility identified Residents #21 and #30 as not receiving food by mouth.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident fund accounts and spend down letters and interview the facility failed to notify Residents #2, #33 and #41, who received Medicaid benefits, when the amount in the account reached $200.00 less than the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) limit of $2,000.00. This affected three of four residents reviewed for management of personal funds accounts. The facility census was 45.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #23, Resident #29 and Resident #41 were comprehensively assessed and care plans were developed regarding health conditions, psychotropic medication use and activities of daily living. This affected three (Residents #23, #29 and #41) of 19 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care for residents. This affected two (Residents #30 and #11) of three residents observed for incontinence care. The facility census was 45.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and discarded when expired. This had the potential to affect all 45 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility policy review, review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Considerations for Preventing Spread of COVID-19, and review of the CDC COVID Tracker website the facility failed to maintain proper infection control procedures to prevent the potential spread of infection including proper COVID screening, use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene practices. This had the potential to affect all 45 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure only pasteurized eggs were used for residents and failed to ensure all kitchen equipment was clean and stored in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 45 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized plan of care for Resident #147 related to incontinence. This affected one resident (Resident #147) of one resident reviewed for incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive discharge summary for Resident #48. This affected one resident (Resident #48) of two residents reviewed for transfer/discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure stop dates within 14 days were included in orders for as-needed (PRN) psychotropic medications for Resident #147 and Resident #33. The facility also failed to ensure duplicate entries were not in place for PRN psychoactive medications in the medication administration record (MAR) for Resident #147. This affected two residents (Resident #33 and #147) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain adequate infection control practices during meal delivery to prevent the spread of infection. This affected two residents (Resident #44 and Resident #148) of two residents observed receiving meal trays in their rooms. The facility census was 45. Findings Include: Observation of State tested nursing assistant (STNA) #600 delivering lunch meal trays to resident rooms on 05/28/19 at 12:38 P.M. revealed STNA #600 entered the room of Resident #44, placed the meal tray down and unfolded the paper surrounding a muffin without first washing her hands or using gloves. An interview with STNA #600 was made shortly after leaving the resident's room, STNA #600 verified she did not wash/sanitize her hands or wear gloves as she touched the food. Observation of STNA #601 on 05/30/19 at 12:45 P.M. [...]
43 fire safety citations on file: 17 on October 28, 2024, 9 on May 5, 2022, 17 on May 30, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 14, 2025 | Fine | $35,595 |
| October 28, 2024 | Fine | $48,822 |
| October 28, 2024 | Payment Denial | 7 days from November 20, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.08 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.80 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.73 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.01 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 72.1% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 87.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
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 3.19 on weekdays and 2.80 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.93 in April to June 2025 to 3.08 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 | 3.08 | 0.34 | 3.19 | 2.80 | 0.8% | 0 of 90 | 50 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.39 | 0.41 | 3.55 | 3.00 | 1.4% | 0 of 92 | 51 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.11 | 0.45 | 3.27 | 2.68 | 14.4% | 0 of 92 | 53 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.93 | 0.42 | 3.04 | 2.65 | 27.2% | 0 of 91 | 53 |
| 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 | 3.8 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 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 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for East Park Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.5% 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. 34 eligible stays.
11.4% 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. 40 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. 23 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. 16 residents counted.
4.0% 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. 25 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 25 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. 4 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: EAST PARK OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Lionstone Care, a group of 24 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 10/29/2021 |
| Stein, Abba | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 10/29/2021 |
| Cusner, Adam | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/27/2025 | |
| Degyansky, Jeffrey | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Goldish, Eliezer | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/29/2021 | |
| Stein, Abba | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/29/2021 | |
| Cusner, Adam | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/27/2025 | |
| Degyansky, Jeffrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2021 | |
| Goldish, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2021 | |
| Stein, Abba | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2021 | |
| Cusner, Adam | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/27/2025 | |
| Degyansky, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2021 | |
| Goldish, Eliezer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2021 | |
| Stein, Abba | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2021 |
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.