6455 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130 · Cuyahoga County · (440) 888-5900
162 certified beds, about 119 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1968
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365192 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 8, 2025, inspectors cited 23 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 54 health citations since February 2020, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $26,685 in the last three years; the largest was $26,685, and the latest is dated October 8, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.21 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.48 of those hours.
50.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Communicare Health, an affiliated group of 110 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 54 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, review of a police report, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #117, a cognitively impaired resident with a history of elopement from eloping. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for Actual Harm on 09/14/25 at approximately 10:30 P.M. when Resident #117 exited the facility without staff knowledge and was found by local police (on 09/15/25 at approximately 12:10 A.M.) in the middle of a residential street of a neighborhood approximately 1.7 miles from the facility. When found, Resident #117 was confused and speaking in his native language (Russian), asking to go to a local ethnic meat market. The resident was subsequently transported to the local hospital via emergency medical services (EMS) for evaluation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel file review, interview, facility policy review and review of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), the facility failed to hire staff free of disqualifying offenses. This affected three out of 12 personnel files reviewed for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #639, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #660 and Supply Coordinator (SC)/CNA #604 and had the potential to affect all 123 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy revealed the facility failed to ensure stored medications for residents use were not expired and were kept at an appropriate temperature for use and failed to ensure Resident #61 medications were not left at bedside unsecured without confirmation of administration. This affected one resident (Resident #61) and had the potential to affect all residents residing at the facility. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to serve hot and palatable foods. This affected seven residents (Resident #3, #27, #52, #54, #69, #99 and #128) and had the potential to affect 120 of 123 residents receiving meals from the facility. The facility indicated three residents (Resident # 17, #23, and #67) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 123.1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed and admission date of 08/12/25. Diagnoses included but were not limited to acute embolism and thrombosis of right femoral vein, type II diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, and mild-protein calorie malnutrition. Resident #3 was noted to be cognitively intact, received a therapeutic diet and required set up for meals. Interview on 09/22/25 at 12:05 P.M. with Resident #3 revealed they get the same cold and overcooked foods. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and safe storage of outside food within unit and resident room refrigerators. This had the potential to affect 120 of 123 residents residing at the facility. The facility indicated that five residents (Residents #29, #33, #49, #94, and #100) had room refrigerators and indicated three residents (Residents #17, #23, and #67) received no food by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 123. Observation on 09/24/25 at 2:50 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility was maintained a clean and sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 123 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide routine notice when the resident account balance reached and/or exceeded the resource limit. This affected four residents (#26, #46, #52 and #106) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. Facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) received showers as required. This finding affected 11 (Residents #8, #11, #27, #52, #58, #61, #69, #99, #110, #119, and #135) of 15 residents reviewed for showers. Facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive wound management system was in place to prevent and treat Resident #27 and #80's wounds and failed to ensure Resident #128's nephrostomy bandage was changed as ordered and Resident #136's intravenous (IV) dressings were completed as ordered. This finding affected four (Residents #27, #80, #128 and #136) of four residents reviewed for quality of wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing to meet resident needs. This affected 91 residents residing on the second floor (Residents #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #34, #35, #36, #37, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #48, #51, #52, #54, #55, #56, #58, #59, #60, #62, #64, #66, #68, #69, #70, #71, #74, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #82, #83, #85, #86, #87, #89, #90, #92, #95, #96, #97, #100, #101, #102, #104, #105, #106, #107, #110, #111, #112, #113, #114, #115, #116, #117, #118, #119, #121, #124, #125, #127 and #138). Facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #8, #69, #71 and #119 were provided with dental services as required. This finding affected four (Residents #8, #69, #71 and #119) of four residents reviewed for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy revealed the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained while assessing Resident #40, #87, #104 and #138 using a shared glucometer and failed to adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) while providing catheter care to Residents #35 and #38. This affected six residents (Resident #40, #87, #104, #138, #35 and #38) of eight residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure advance directives were updated in the medical record to reflect resident's current wishes. This affected one resident (Resident #10) of 60 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the resident/responsible party received the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) timely and as required. This affected one resident (#123) of three residents reviewed for liability notices. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop individualized plans of care. This affected three residents (#67, #71 and #117) out of 44 resident records reviewed. Facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise a resident's care plan to reflect a residents current needs. This affected two of (Resident #69 and #117) of forty four sampled Residents. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #38's pressure ulcer wound care dressings were completed as ordered. This finding affected one (Resident #38) of seven residents reviewed for pressure wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident #119 with timely incontinence care. This finding affected one (Resident #119) of eleven residents reviewed for incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident #67's enteral feeding was labeled and dated as required. This affected one resident (Resident #67) of four residents requiring enteral feedings at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain tracheostomy care and ensure clean suctioning equipment and trach replacement supplies were available for Resident #14. This affected one resident (Resident #14) of one resident reviewed for trach care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #8 was monitored prior to and following dialysis treatments. This affected one (Resident #8) of one resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of medication administration, interview, record review, and review of the instructions for insulin pen-injections, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered resulting in a medication errors rate of 6.7 percent (%). This affected two residents (Resident #87 and #138) out of five residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #133 and Resident #136 was free from significant medications error. This affected two residents (Resident #133 and #136) of three residents reviewed for medication errors. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to administer pain relieving medications as ordered. This affected one (Resident #8) of three residents reviewed who received pain medications. The census was 120.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interviews and policy review the facility failed to ensure effective discharge planning was in place for two residents (Residents #125 and #126) of three residents reviewed for discharge planning. The facility census was 123.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based of observation, interview, record review,Self-Reported Incident (SRI) , and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure all staff followed Mechanical lift protocol. This affected one (Resident #135) of three residents reviewed for safe transfer with Mechanical lift. This had the potential to affect 33 residents that required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers (Resident #1, #3, #9, #10, #18, #27, #37, #38, #39, #44, #48, #49, #51, #54, #56, #57, #64, #68, #70, #71, #78, #81, #85, #88, #89, #94, #110, #114, #115, #122, #123 and #135). The facility census was 122.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care. This affected four (#102, #115, #117, and #120) of six residents observed for incontinence care. The facility census was 128.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of a local police report, the facility failed to ensure resident requests were honored and residents were treated with respect and dignity at all times. This affected one (#120) of 10 sampled residents and two residents who participated in random interviews (#108 and #8). The facility census was 128.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary environment. This affected two (#67 and #117) of five random residents whose rooms were observed. The facility census was 128.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #135 received appropriate discharge instructions. This finding affected one resident (#135) of three residents reviewed for discharge instructions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and menu review, the facility failed to serve hot, palatable, and visibly pleasing foods. This affected Residents #17, #19, #20, #28, #34, #108, and had the potential to affect all residents, except Residents #23, #25, #63, #100, and #115 who were identified as not consuming food by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hair coverning when in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all residents, except Residents #23, #25, #63, #100, and #115 who were identified as not consuming food by mouth (NPO). The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of personnel file, the facility failed to ensure staff who clocked in for work with symptoms of Covid-19 were immediately tested and or sent home. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility also failed to ensure urinary catheter drainage bags were not placed on the floor. This affected one (#85) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, staff personnel files, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity. This affected six residents who were interviewed, whose records were reviewed, or were observed during random observations (#9, #11, #71, #109, #112, and #115) and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected seven (#17, #89, #90, #110, #111, #112, #113, and #115) residents and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing monitoring and timely intervention for residents with symptoms of urinary tract infections and failed to provide timely and appropriate incontinence care and toileting assistance. This affected one (#115) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters, and four (#15, #17, #117 and #136) of four residents reviewed for incontinence. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure assistive devices were in place for meals. This affected three (#97, #125 and #126) of three residents reviewed for assistive devices during meals. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure reasonable requests made by a resident's guardian were honored. This affected one (#1) of one resident reviewed for reasonable requests made by a guardian. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and personnel file review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to accepted standards of practice. This affected one resident (#10) identified during a random observation. The facility also failed to ensure pain medications were administered as ordered by the physician and requested by the resident. This affected two of 14 sampled residents (#21 and #22). The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to appropriately care for a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube site to identify, lessen or resolve possible skin irritation and local infection. This affected one (#115) of two residents reviewed for PEG tubes. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate respiratory care equipment was at the resident's bedside for immediate access. This affected two (#1 and #17) of two residents reviewed for tracheostomy care. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended in resident rooms. This affected one (#72) of three residents whose rooms were randomly observed for unsecured medications. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, resident record review, printed meal ticket review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in the correct form to meet resident needs. This affected one (#17) of one resident reviewed for appropriate diet texture. The facility census was 131.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to collaborate care between nursing and physician services to identify and assess risk factors affecting quality of care and wellbeing of Resident #129 and placing Resident #129 at risk for the development of a blood clot and rehospitalization within 30 days of admission. Actual harm occurred on 09/01/23 when Resident #129, who had a history of embolism (blood clot), was at high risk for developing blood clots and was non-ambulatory, insisted on being sent to the hospital because the facility was not doing anything to address his complaints of severe pain in his left leg which was being treated at the facility as neuropathic pain. Resident #129 was ordered the anti-coagulant medication - Heparin from admission through 08/23/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary and comfortable interior living environment. This affected seven residents (Resident #4, #16, #31, #38, #39, #78, and #103.) of the 125 residents living in the facility. Finding Include: 1. Observation on 10/17/23 at 8:15 A.M. of Resident #4's room revealed the heater unit on the floor had busted parts, was rusted and covered in dust. Three of three walls in the room were dirty with pealing paint and dried on staining from the ceiling to the floor. Interview with Resident #4 at the time of observation revealed she wished they would do something about the heater and dirty walls. 2. Observation on 10/16/23 at 5:03 P.M. of Resident #16's room revealed the bathroom door had four holes in the middle of the door and the privacy curtain had two holes in the top of the curtain. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility policy, observation and interivew, the facility failed to demonstrate appropriate use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when entering and exiting the room of Resident #33 who resided on the second floor and was on transmission-based precautions for COVID-19. This had the potential to affect 46 residents (Resident #14, #78, #122, #100, #5, #53, #104, #113, #8, #16, #41, #29, #57, #81, #4, #10, #76, #63, #47, #46, #68, #89, #83, #112, #42, #24, #13, #18, #27, #55, #40, #30, #25, #6, #19, #38, #73, #98, #66, #32, #107, #90, #106, #31, #60, and #21 residing on the second floor. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to timely address a change of condition for Resident #16. This affected one resident (Resident #16) of three residents reviewed for a change in condition. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased record review, review of the facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to provided daily and as needed nail care to Resident #78 who required staff assistance with his activities of daily living (ADL). This affected one resident (Resident #78) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all smoking supplies were secured in a locked area when not in use by independent smokers. This affected two residents (Resident #106 and #65) of two residents reviewed for smoking. The facility identified 27 residents who independently smoked at the facility. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility policy and interview, the facility failed to follow the physician order for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of a psychotropic medication as recommended by the licensed pharmacist for Resident #57. This affected one resident (Resident #57) of five residents reviewed for GDR of medications. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error for Resident #129, who had an admitting diagnosis of embolism and thrombosis of the iliac artery and history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the bilateral lower extremities, when staff failed to administer Heparin (an anti-coagulant/blood thinner medication) according to the physician order. The facility also failed to notify the physician (PCP) and/or certified nurse practitioner (CNP) of missed doses of the medication. This affected one resident (#129) of six residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information for the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) report to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This had the potential to affect all 125 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer the resident to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation and determination after the resident had a psychiatric hospitalization and subsequent new mental health diagnosis. This affected one Resident (Resident #84) of ten residents (Resident #16, #19, #50, #59, #61, #84, #93, #102, #110 and #147) reviewed for PASRR. The facility census was 150. Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #84 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, other schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. Review of the progress note dated 01/01/18 revealed Resident #84 had increased anxiety, suicidal ideation and complained of hearing voices in his head. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control practices while passing a meal tray and cleaning a contact precaution room. This affected one resident (Resident #19) of two residents (Residents #19 and #148) reviewed for isolation precautions.
20 fire safety citations on file: 2 on October 8, 2025, 1 on October 26, 2023, 17 on February 13, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 8, 2025 | Fine | $26,685 |
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) | 3.21 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.48 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.94 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.82 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.91 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.84 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 3.32 on weekdays and 2.94 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.18 in April to June 2025 to 3.21 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 | 3.21 | 0.48 | 3.32 | 2.94 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 119 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.53 | 0.47 | 3.65 | 3.21 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 116 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.28 | 0.38 | 3.41 | 2.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 127 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.18 | 0.37 | 3.27 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 118 |
| 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 | 4.0 | 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 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 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 | 14.5 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Greenbrier Health Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.6% 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. 52 eligible stays.
10.2% 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. 57 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 27 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. 11 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. 26 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. 26 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. 3 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: PEARL LEASING CO LLC. CMS links this home to Communicare Health, a group of 110 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated Op Co., LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2020 |
| Consolidated Health Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| Consolidated Health LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| Ne Baker Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| The Stephen L. Rosedale 2012 Spousal Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Stoltz, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2012 | |
| Wilheim, Ronald | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Pearl Ohio Mgt Co LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Gindlesperger, Jinnalee | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/11/2024 | |
| Gregorin, Jason | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Groves, Donna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/14/2023 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Richard | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/10/2025 | |
| C.r. Stoltz Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Consolidated Health Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| Consolidated Health LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| Gbrier Asset Ownership, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| I. Rosedale Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Ne Baker Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2020 | |
| Pearl Ohio Mgt Co LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/16/2025 | |
| R.s. Wilheim Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Ronald S Wilheim 2012 Spousal Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Rosedale Family Investment Company, Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Rrw, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| S.l. Rosedale Irrevocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| The Stephen L. Rosedale 2012 Spousal Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Wilheim Family Investment Company, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2005 | |
| Gindlesperger, Jinnalee | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/03/2025 | |
| Gregorin, Jason | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/03/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.