2401 Cass Rd, Toledo, OH 43614 · Lucas County · (419) 382-5050
84 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365737 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 10, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since September 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.09 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.37 of those hours.
68.8% 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 61 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to implement their policy to ensure all newly hired staff were checked on the nurse aide registry (NAR) to verify eligibility for employment prior to working with residents. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the main dining room floor was free of debris and refuse at the time of meal service. This affected five (#10, #25, #57, #82, and #89) of five residents reviewed for homelike environment. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to prepare meals in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents, except one (#97), identified by the facility as receiving no food by mouth. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure meal trays were transported in a sanitary manner. This affected 30 (#30, #47, #48, #49, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #58, #59, #60, #61, #63, #66, #68, #69, #70, #72, #74, #77, #78, #79, #81, #83, #84, #86, #88 and #90) residents whose meal trays were transported on the North Hall Tray Cart (NHTC). Lastly, the facility failed to ensure foods were prepared and served at appropriate temperatures to prevent foodborne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents, except one (#97), identified by the facility as being NPCO. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, staff interview, family interview, local police department (LPD) interview, review of the LPD report, review of the facility initiated Self-Reported Incident (SRI), review of the facility's investigation and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation. This affected one (#92) of five residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of the facility's investigation, staff interview, local police department (LPD) interview, review of the Ohio Department of Health's (ODH) Certification and Licensure (CALS) system and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a complete and thorough investigation into an allegation of misappropriation. This affected one (#92) of five residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received fortified foods as ordered. This affected one (#41) of one resident identified on fortified foods. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, policy review and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to ensure the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for residents on contact precautions. This affected two (#13 and #49) of six residents reviewed for infection control. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed after contact with a resident with Clostridium difficile (C-diff). This affected one (#49) of six residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident family was notified of hospital emergency room transfer with a change in resident condition. This affected one (#1) of three residents reviewed for notification of health status. The facility census 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure central venous catheter monitoring and treatments were provided in accordance with physician orders. This affected one (#1) of three residents reviewed for central venous catheter care. The facility identified three individuals with central venous catheters in place in a facility. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Based on staff interview, review of facility maintenance work order logs, and review of plumbing vendor documents, the facility failed to ensure hot water temperatures were maintained at acceptable levels. This affected 19 (#8, #12, #15, #24, #29, #31, #32, #36, #45, #57, #60, #62, #65, #67, #69, #71, #73, #77, and #78) residents who were identified by the facility as residing on the Middle North and North Back Halls. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident preferences for daily care were honored. This affected one (#78) of three residents reviewed for personal care. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement pain management interventions timely to address resident pain. This affected one (#78) of three residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of facility policy, and review of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) procedure regulations, the facility failed to ensure urinary catheter care was completed per approved procedures. This affected one (#26) of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility identified six residents (#1, #9, #19, #26, #36, and #78) that utilized urinary catheters. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, staff, resident, health insurance provider and waiver service provider interviews, review of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, review of hospital documents, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a safe resident discharge to home. This resulted in Actual Harm on 07/24/25 at approximately 10:44 A.M. when Resident #62, who was dependent on others for care and required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers, was discharged to home without the needed equipment and services to meet her care needs. Subsequently, Resident #62 remained in a standard wheelchair for approximately six hours without any care provided, including incontinence care, resulting in the development of a pressure ulcer. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the dishwasher monitoring logs and review of facility policy, the facility failed to practice proper hand hygiene during meal service. Additionally, the facility failed to label and date food items in the resident refrigerators. Lastly, the facility failed to test and monitor proper sanitation of the dishwasher. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except one (#137) resident identified by the facility as receiving no nutrition by mouth. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility to label multiuse insulin pens and vials with the date opened to ensure medication integrity. This affected four (#5, #39, #62, and #137) of four residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the menu, review of the menu spreadsheet, staff interview and review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) resources, the facility failed to ensure adequate meal portions were served. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure all components of a meal were provided. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except one (#137) resident identified by the facility as receiving no nutrition from the kitchen. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure open wounds were covered during food preparation and meal service. This had the potential to affect all residents, except one (#137) resident identified by the facility as receiving no food from the kitchen. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene during wound care. This affected one (#53) of one resident reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident dignity was maintained. This affected two (#42 and #43) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures related to reporting and investigating allegations of misappropriation were implemented. This affected one (#16) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate hygiene assistance for a dependent resident. This affected one (#31) of one resident reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) care. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure podiatry needs were met. This affected one (#33) of one resident reviewed for podiatry services. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. Observation of 26 medication administration opportunities revealed two medication errors, resulting in a medication error rate of seven percent. This affected two residents (#1 and #51) of three observed for medication administration. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure residents were repositioned in bed in a safe manner to prevent falls. This affected one resident (#11) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and home health agency interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate preparation and coordination of services prior to Resident #1's discharge to home. This affected one resident (#1) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, review of the medical record, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatments were provided as ordered for Residents #60 and #64 and further failed to ensure preventive interventions were in place to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer for Resident #8 identified at risk for developing a pressure ulcer. This affected three (#8, #60 and #64) of three residents reviewed for pressure. The facility identified three residents (#8, #60 and #64) currently in the facility with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of controlled substance administration records, review of medication administration records, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician orders and failed to ensure an accurate system of dispensing and administering controlled substances. This affected three (#77, #26, #18) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed evaluate, provide care and treatment, and conduct ongoing assessments to treat a resident's skin alteration. This affected one (Resident #4) of two residents reviewed for skin care and treatment. The facility census was 69.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, physician office visit notes, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a sufficient supply of medical supplies and equipment were provided at the time of resident discharge from the facility. This affected one (Resident #01) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 76 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility shower schedule, the facility failed to provide residents with assistance to complete scheduled showers. This affected two (Residents #01 and #05) of three residents reviewed for the provision of activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 76 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff practiced proper infection control practices when entering and exiting rooms under transmission based precautions. This had the potential to affect all 75 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of facility policy, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal vaccines were offered to residents per CDC guidelines. This affected two (#15 and #40) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, review of the facility policy, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered COVID-19 booster vaccinations. This affected one (#40) of five residents reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, hospital documentation review, review of an incident report, review of witness statements, review of a facility policy, and review of facility corrective action, the facility failed to ensure resident transferring equipment was maintained and utilized in a safe and appropriate manner to ensure proper checks and safety measures were taken when assisting a resident with a mechanical lift transfer resulting in a fall. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #21 was transferred by a Hoyer (mechanical) lift while staff members utilized a lift pad that was known to be defective by previous shift staff members. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity by utilizing disposable eating utensils and cups for meal service. This affected two (#25 and #26) of 12 residents observed eating on the 100 Hall. The census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered per physician orders. This affected one (#17) of three residents reviewed for medications. The census was 72.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interviews, resident interviews, and review of facility policy the facility failed to provide preventative skin care treatments as ordered. This affected three residents (#28, #71 and #75) of the four residents reviewed for skin care and treatment. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the nursing staff information and staff schedules and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the services of a registered nurse for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week as required. This had the potential to affect all 66 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative in writing the reason for transfer. This affect five residents (#03, #14, #37, #44 and #48) out of five residents reviewed for hospitalization. In addition, the facility failed to send notification of transfer to the State Ombudsman for three residents (#37, #44, and #48) out of five residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received bed hold notifications upon hospitalization. This affected two residents (#14 and #44) out of five residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement a person-centered care plan for a resident who was unable to speak English. This affected one resident (#47) out of one resident reviewed for communication. The facility identified two residents who do not speak the predominant language of the facility. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident care plans were revised to reflect current resident medical/behavioral conditions. This affected one resident (#48) out of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 66. Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included COVID on 08/23/22, and pneumonia on 08/26/22, muscle weakness, type II diabetes mellitus, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, hypertension and obesity. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who spoke only a foreign language had an effective form of daily communications to express their wants and needs. This affected one resident (#47) out of one resident reviewed for communication. The facility identified two residents who do not speak the predominant language of the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure residents Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) planned care was implemented to prevent decline. This affected one resident (#48) out of four resident reviewed for ADLs. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents were transferred out of bed as desired. This affected two residents (#26, and #23) of four reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 66. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/21/21. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, paraplegia, and bipolar disorder. Review of Resident #26's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 was cognitively intact. Resident #26 was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use. The resident required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and dressing. Resident #26 displayed no behaviors during the review period. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure timely wound assessments were completed. This affected one resident (#03) out of four residents reviewed of pressure ulcers. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place as care planned and ordered. This affected one resident (#34) out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement nutritional interventions as recommended by the dietician. This affected one resident (#14) out of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of a hospital document, and review of a pharmacy document, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered. This affected one resident (#14) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the monthly pharmacy reviews, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to complete monthly reviews of resident's medication regimen and failed to report irregularities to the facility. This affected one resident (#14) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of monthly pharmacy reviews, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to recommend gradual dose reductions of a psychotropic medication. This affected one resident (#14) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified 29 residents in the facility who received antidepressant medications. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were quarantined separately from their roommates who were not COVID-19 positive. This affected one resident (#49) out of seven residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 66. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/10/19. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease and COVID-19 added 08/23/22. Review of Resident #47's census information revealed Resident #47 resided the same room since 03/04/22. No room changes were found. Review of Resident #47's COVID-19 testing and notifications revealed on 08/21/22 Resident #47 tested positive for COVID-19. On 08/28/22 Resident #47 was retested and was still positive. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner. This had potential to affect 77 out of 78 residents in the facility. This did not affect Resident #41 who did not eat food from the kitchen. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a notice of transfer to residents and responsible parties upon transfer/discharge from the facility. This affected four residents (#3, #7, #8 and #75) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility identified 23 residents that had been transferred from the facility in the last 90 days. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's advance directives were accurate in the medical record. This affected three (Resident #8, #14 and #41) of 24 residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to offer and document resident and responsible party choices of bed hold options upon transfer to the hospital. This affected three residents (#3, #7 and #8) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility identified 23 residents that had been transferred from the facility in the last 90 days. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to timely and accurately revise comprehensive care plans. This affected two (#31 and #36) of 23 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for a resident that was a planned discharge from the facility. This affected one (resident #77) of two residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility policy, staff interview, resident interview and observation, the facility failed to follow up on range of motion recommendation from therapy services. This affected one (Resident #14) of two residents reviewed for restorative services. The facility identified 11 residents who currently received restorative services. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility policy, staff and resident interview and observation, the facility failed to implement a physician ordered and therapy recommended splinting program/functional program for a resident upon discharge from skilled therapy services. This affected one (#31) of three residents revealed for range of motion services. The facility identified four residents with splints. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to apply supplemental oxygen as ordered. This affected one (Resident #33) of 26 residents identified by the facility with a physician order for supplemental oxygen. The facility census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for a mechanical soft diet. This affected one (#28) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility identified 12 residents with mechanically altered diets. The facility census was 78.
8 fire safety citations on file: 3 on February 10, 2025, 3 on September 22, 2022, 2 on September 12, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.09 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.80 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.62 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.10 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 68.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 70.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.43 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 3.20 on weekdays and 2.80 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.17 in April to June 2025 to 3.09 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 | 3.09 | 0.37 | 3.20 | 2.80 | 5.0% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.11 | 0.34 | 3.25 | 2.77 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.17 | 0.28 | 3.31 | 2.81 | 5.9% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.17 | 0.34 | 3.31 | 2.80 | 11.9% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 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 | 3.9 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.7 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.2 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Heatherdowns Rehab & Residential Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.3% 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. 41 eligible stays.
11.2% 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. 50 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. 21 eligible stays.
50.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 28 residents counted.
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. 34 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. 34 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. 6 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: HEATHERDOWNS OPERATING COMPANY LLC. CMS links this home to Lionstone Care, a group of 24 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lionstone Hz Opco Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/2023 |
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 01/01/2023 |
| Stein, Abba | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 01/01/2023 |
| 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 | 01/01/2023 | |
| Stein, Abba | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Cusner, Adam | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/27/2025 | |
| Degyansky, Jeffrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Goldish, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Stein, Abba | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Cusner, Adam | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/27/2025 | |
| Degyansky, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Goldish, Eliezer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Kazarnovsky, Solomon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Stein, Abba | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.