7770 Columbus Road Ne, Louisville, OH 44641 · Stark County · (330) 875-1456
110 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365604 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 10, 2025, inspectors cited 19 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 51 health citations since October 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $28,763 in the last three years; the largest was $28,763, and the latest is dated December 20, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.75 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
52.3% 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 51 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to maintain sufficient levels of staff to meet the total care needs of all residents. This affected five residents (#109, #113, #114, and #184) of five residents reviewed for personal care services and had the potential to affect all 93 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. This had the potential to affect all 93 residents of the facility. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation of dining, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to promote resident dignity and independence while dining, by standing over residents while assisting them to eat and not assisting the resident into a position to be able to feed themselves. This affected four residents (#24, #87,#92, and #65) of eleven residents observed for dining needs. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior and to maintain a temperature between 71 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 81 degrees F in the shower room of the E-Wing, which was the facility memory care unit. This affected all 26 of 26 residents residing on the facility's E-Wing. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, resident observations, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to assist residents who were dependent on staff for their needs including timely incontinence care, getting up for meals timely, and bathing/showering as scheduled. This affected three residents (#109, #114, and #184) of three residents reviewed for provision of care. The facility identified 56 residents as needing assistance with incontinence care, bathing/showering, and required use of a mechanical lift to set up in chair for meals. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and facility policy, observations, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene to stop the spread of infection. This affected one resident (#113) of two residents observed for incontinence care. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Quality Assurance (QA) committee meeting attendance sheets, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a QA meeting was held the first quarter of 2024. This had the potential to affect all 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, interviews, facility policy review, and review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Guidelines, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive infection control program was maintained to ensure the health and safety of all residents in the facility including timely notification of the local health department (LHD) regarding positive cases of Coronavirus (COVID-19), failed to have a procedure in place to address staff illness, failed to ensure a comprehensive water maintenance program was continuously implemented, failed to clean the rubber stopper of a multi-use insulin pen and failed to track and trend potential outbreak illness in the facility. This affected Resident #23, #35, #69, #71, #73, #186, #187 and #235 but had the potential to affect all 89 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the E wing (memory care unit) was homelike by having a basin on the hallway floor outside of Resident #55's room to collect water from a ceiling leak for an extended period of time and by having walls in disrepair in 9 resident's (#24, #35, #54, #62, #63, #76, #78, #335, and #336) rooms. This affected 10 residents (#24, #35, #54, #55, #62, #63, #76, #78, #335, and #336) out of 26 residents who resided on the E wing (memory care unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and staff interviews, the facility failed to consistently complete staff evaluations for two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). This was identified in two personnel files (CNA #367 and #370) out of five employee files reviewed and had the potential to affect all residents except the 26 residents (#12, #17, #18, #20, #24, #29, #30, #35, #42, #45, #48, #49, #53, #54, #55, #59, #61, #62, #63, #66 #76, #78, #79, #335, #336, #337) on the E wing where CNA #367 and #370 had not worked.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the closed medical record, review of facility investigation, interview and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #82 was free from physical restraints. This affected one resident ( Resident #82) of three reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a Self Reported Incident (SRI) with the facility's investigation, policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure protection of a resident during an investigation of emotional/verbal abuse and the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed into allegations of verbal/emotional abuse. This affected one (Resident #188) of two residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure a Significant Change assessment was completed for Resident #2 after initiating hospice services. This affected one resident (Resident #2) of 26 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment accurately reflected a pressure ulcer for Resident #82 and correct hearing status and anti-anxiety medication use for Resident #44. This affected two residents ( Resident #44 and #82) of 26 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to include hearing loss and monitoring the correct dialysis access for Resident #44, constipation and diarrhea for Resident #71, and oxygen use for Resident #67. This affected three residents (#44, #67, and #71) of 26 resident records reviewed. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #55's doorway was free from potential fall hazards. This affected one (#55) resident of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review, manufacturer's instructions, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #42 received nectar thick liquids as ordered. This affected one resident (#42); however, it had the potential to affect seven residents (#1, #30, #35, #42, #43, #50, #63) the facility identified as being on a thickened liquids. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #67 had physician's orders for oxygen use, oxygen tubing was dated at the time it was changed, and administration of oxygen was documented in the medical record at the time of each administration and Resident #2's oxygen cannula was stored properly. This affected two residents (#2 and #67) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's dialysis contract, and interview, the facility failed to monitor vital signs and weights before and after dialysis for Residents #52 and #239, and failed to maintain adequate communication with the outside dialysis center for Resident #239. This affected two residents (#52 and #239) of three reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure narcotic pain medications were provided according to physician orders and non-pharmacologic pain relief interventions were encouraged prior to medication administration. This affected one resident (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the medical record and interview with staff the facility failed to ensure multi-dose insulin pens were dated as to when they were first accessed. This affected three residents (Resident #11,#25 and #242) of 24 residents prescribed insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was written prior to obtaining a laboratory test. This affected one (Resident #71) of five residents reviewed for medication use.
Inspectors wrote2. On 02/03/25 at 1:49 P.M., Resident #71 reported she had problems with constipation and sometimes went four to six days before she was able to have a bowel movement . Resident #71 stated this was not a new problem. While at home she used a little round pill. Review of Resident #71's medical record revealed diagnoses including cerebral infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, depression, migraine, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, anxiety disorder, delusional disorder, osteoporosis, and constipation. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #71 was cognitively intact and able to make herself understood. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review and interview, the facility failed to establish comprehensive written policies and procedures related to the Quality Assurance (QA) process. This had the potential to affect all 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of the facility bed hold notices and interview with staff the facility failed to ensure bedhold notices were given to Resident #52 and #82 before a hospital transfer. This affected two residents ( Resident #52 and #82) of three reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were not misappropriated. This finding affected two (Residents #20 and #28) of three residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility investigation review the facility failed to prevent Resident #18 from exiting the facility unsupervised. This affected one resident (Resident #18) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident photographs, facility fall log review, resident medical record review, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to appropriately identify and assess an acute change in Resident #98's condition (including altered mental status/and increased falls) to provide timely medical intervention/treatment for the resident. This affected one resident (#98) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 98. Actual harm occurred on 11/29/23 when Resident #98, who experienced an acute change in condition including three falls within an hour (between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.), was not comprehensively assessed or provided timely medical evaluation/intervention. [...]
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on review of the facility fall log, resident medical record and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #98's physician and family were timely notified of a change in resident condition including falls and hospital transfer. This affected one resident (#98) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 98.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on review of facility fall log, review of resident photographs, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement comprehensive, individualized and effective interventions to decrease the risk of falls for Resident #98. This affected one resident (#98) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 98.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were completed accurately. This affected five residents (Residents #10, #29, #34, #40, and #61) of six residents reviewed for pain and anxiety medication usage. The facility census was 102. Findings Include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, diabetes, heart disease, and partial paralysis of the left side after a stroke. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #10 revealed an order dated 08/31/23 for Oxycodone (a narcotic pan medication) 5 milligrams (mg) every eight hours as needed for pain. Attempt and document non-pharmacological interventions dated 08/31/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and staff education, the facility failed to document why as needed pain medications were being administered and what non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to administering pain medication. This affected six residents (Residents #10, #29, #45, #61, #65 and #97) of six residents reviewed for pain medication documentation. The facility census was 102. Findings Include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, diabetes, heart disease, and partial paralysis of the left side after a stroke. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #10 revealed an order dated 08/31/23 for Oxycodone (a narcotic pan medication) 5 milligrams (mg) every eight hours as needed for pain and to attempt and document non-pharmacological interventions. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and pharmacy dispensing records the facility failed to implement a gradual dose reduction for psychotropic anxiety medication as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #84) of six residents reviewed for controlled substance usage. The facility census was 102. Findings Include: Medical review revealed Resident #84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, dementia without behavioral disturbance, arthritis, autistic disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and glaucoma. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #84 revealed an order dated 08/09/21 for Ativan (a psychotropic anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) orally every evening at bedtime. On 08/07/23 an order was written to decrease the dosage to 0.25 mg every evening at bedtime. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of personnel files, the facility failed to ensure employees did not have a finding entered into the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry. This had the potential to affect all 93 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record and activity calendar review, the facility failed to provide an ongoing activities program for the residents on the secured dementia unit to improve boredom, loneliness and frustration that could result in distress or agitation. This affected three of three residents (#8, #63, and #73) reviewed for activities with the potential to affect all 23 residents on the secured dementia unit in a facility of 93 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of activity calendars, review of staffing patterns and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to have sufficient quantity of staff to provide the necessary behavioral health, psychosocial and dementia care to residents with consideration of the number, acuity, and diagnoses of the residents. This affected all 23 residents (#7, #8, #14, #26, #30, #34, #40, #41, #44, #48, #55, #59, #61, #62, #63, #68, #69, #70, #73, #74, #75, #130, and #131) on the secured dementia unit out of 93 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, interview, and review of product information, the facility failed to properly disinfect equipment being removed from a resident's room who had a diagnosis of clostridium difficile. This had the potential to affect eight residents (#18, #19, #28, #80, #184, #186, #230, and #280) of 93 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility self reported incident review, resident interview, medical record review and staff interview. The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect by staff members. This affected three (Residents #50, #52 and #230) of three residents reviewed for staff treatment. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, electronic narcotic dispense records, policy review, schedule review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure narcotic medications were dispensed appropriately and not misappropriated by staff members. This affected two (Residents #15 and #31) of six residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and resident's representative in writing of the reason for transfer/discharge to the hospital and send a copy of the notice to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This affected one of two residents (#81) reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative of the facility policy for bed hold, including reserve bed payment. This affected two residents reviewed for hospitalization (#35 and #81) of 93 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure pre-admission screening and resident review was resubmitted after a significant change with new updated mental illness diagnosis. This affected two (Resident #31 and #64) of two residents reviewed for pre-admission screening and resident review. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, observation, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents dependent upon staff assistance with meals were provided assistance as indicated. This affected one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for assistance. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to reassess and implement interventions for Resident #8's nutritional status following an identification of poor intake resulting in a significant weight loss. This affected one resident (#8) out of three residents (#40 and #284) reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, review of pharmacy delivery records, and interview, the facility failed to ensure ordered medications were available for administration. This affected one (Resident #181) of five residents reviewed for medication use and one additional resident (Resident #185) who addressed a concern during initial review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, manufacturer guidelines review, and interview, the facility failed to properly sanitize a glucometer. This had the potential to affect five of five residents (Residents #42, #51, #72, #73, #79) who were ordered glucometer testing on the East Hallway of the facility. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to timely implement the restorative nursing programs (RNP) for Resident #81. This affected one of two residents reviewed for RNP.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident interview, family interview, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to timely identify, assess and document resident wounds. This affected two (Resident #77 and #63) of three residents reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. The facility also failed to provide appropriate care and services for constipation for one (Resident #24) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a fall intervention was in place for Resident #12. This affected one (Resident #12) of three residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive and individualized bladder program was in place to ensure Resident #81 remained as continent as possible. This affected one of one resident reviewed for bladder incontinence. This facility identified 36 residents on the restorative scheduled toileting program.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the antibiotic stewardship program was implemented for Resident #81, who received an antibiotic (ATB) for an urinary tract infection (UTI) that did not meet the McGreer criteria the facility used for ATB stewardship. This affected one of one resident reviewed for ATB use. The facility had five residents receiving antibiotics.
20 fire safety citations on file: 6 on February 10, 2025, 5 on October 6, 2022, 9 on October 3, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 20, 2023 | Fine | $28,763 |
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) | 3.75 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.35 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.38 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.92 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.3% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.3% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.34 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 3.92 on weekdays and 3.35 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 21.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.91 in April to June 2025 to 3.75 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 | 3.75 | 0.45 | 3.92 | 3.35 | 21.5% | 1 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.89 | 0.57 | 4.07 | 3.45 | 17.5% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.96 | 0.74 | 4.18 | 3.40 | 12.8% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.91 | 0.60 | 4.18 | 3.22 | 14.7% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| 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 | 6.9 | 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 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.9 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.9 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.9 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Green Meadows Skilled Nursing and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.0% 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. 59 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 60 eligible stays.
5.6% 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. 38 eligible stays.
51.4% 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. 37 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. 57 residents counted.
3.0% 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. 57 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. 9 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: PROGRESSIVE GREEN MEADOWS, LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allegiance Healthcare Holdco LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Fejcc Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Mdatas Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Mrs Family Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Capital Finance LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Finkelstein, Eliezer | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Finkelstein, Eliezer | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Hochstadter, Natan | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Capital Finance LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Progressive Quality Care Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2002 | |
| Dewald, Shilo | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Finkelstein, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/10/2022 | |
| Rawal, Ish | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Daubenmire, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Dewald, Shilo | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Finkelstein, Eliezer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Rawal, Ish | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 |
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.