Home / Ohio / Broadview Heights
2801 E Royalton Rd, Broadview Heights, OH 44147 · Cuyahoga County · (440) 526-4770
149 certified beds, about 108 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1985
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365661 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 9, 2026, inspectors cited 20 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 51 health citations since January 2020, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $27,378 in the last three years; the largest was $27,378, and the latest is dated June 9, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.43 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.83 of those hours.
67.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Crown Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 9 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 51 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, review of incident investigations, observations, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to prevent elopement for two residents (Residents #1 and #3) of three residents reviewed for elopement. 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 closed medical record review, review of emergency medical services (EMS) run report, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely provide basic life support (BLS) including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to Resident #123 (a resident with advance directives for a Full Code status). This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm with subsequent death on [DATE] at approximately 4:20 A.M. when Resident #123 was found not breathing, not moving, unresponsive, and without vital signs. Prior to initiating CPR, Registered Nurse (RN) #439 requested assistance from RN #301. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner and failed to dispose of expired foods timely. This had the potential to affect all 102 residents who received food from the kitchen (as Residents #2, #20, #35, #81, and #96 were identified as having orders for nothing by mouth). The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility records and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director attended the quarterly quality assessment and assurance (QAA) committee meetings. This had the potential to affect all 107 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure wound care orders were updated and treatments had been administered per physician orders for three residents. This affected two residents (#73 and #105) of three reviewed for wound care and one resident (#35) out of three residents reviewed for tube feeding. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure timely and appropriate incontinence care had been completed. This affected one resident (#12) of three observed for incontinence care. The facility also failed to ensure appropriate and timely care provided for a change in condition for one resident (#120) of six residents reviewed for change of condition. The facility census was 107. Findings Include: 1. Record review for Resident #105 revealed resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to serve meals to meet the nutritional needs of residents requiring double portions at meals. This affected all 24 residents (#1, #5, #7, #8, #14, #18, #28, #37, #38, #46, #47, #50, #56, #63, #69, #74, #84, #89, #90, #94, #95, #106, #108, and #119) identified by the facility as requiring double portions at lunch meals. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to accurately document the care for facility residents. This affected five residents (Residents #4, #87, #113, #120, and #121) of nine closed records reviewed and 34 open records reviewed. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain resident bathing facilities in proper functioning order. This had the potential to affect all 107 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff called report and sent associated laboratory reports to the emergency room (ER) when a resident sustained a change in condition and was transferred to the ER. This affected one resident (Resident #120) of six residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews and facility policy the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan related to Resident #105's dementia. This affected 1 resident (Resident #105) of 3 residents reviewed for dementia care. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise care plans to ensure accuracy of the treatment plan. This affected two residents (Residents #48 and #70) of 34 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 107. Findings Include:1. Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke affecting the left nondominant side, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), end stage renal disease dependent on dialysis, dementia without behavioral disturbance, high blood pressure, chronic pain, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and insomnia. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews, and a review of facility policies, the facility failed to provide required activities of daily living (ADL) care by not removing facial hair for one resident (Resident #29) and by not ensuring showers were provided for another resident (Resident #20). This deficiency affected two residents (Residents #20 and #29) who were dependent on staff for care, out of four residents reviewed for ADL services. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure wound care treatments for a pressure ulcer were administered per physician orders. This affected one resident (#100) of five reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 107. Findings Include:Record review for Resident #100 revealed an admission date of 12/18/18 with diagnosis that included Alzheimer's disease, type two diabetes, repeated falls, dementia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, hyperlipidemia, disorientation, delusional disorder, essential hypertension and hypothyroidism. Review of the Skin Inspection assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #100 did not have any new skin issues. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff interviews, and a review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure that chemicals and razors were secured and inaccessible to residents. This affected 12 residents (Residents #11, #16, #27, #30, #60, #62, #64, #75, #82, #84, #91, #105, ) and had the potential to affect all 22 residents (Residents #11, #16, #19, #23, #27, #30, #43, #58, #60, #62, #64, #66, #75, #76, #82,# 84, #89, #90, #91, #100, #103, and #105) of 23 residents on the locked memory care unit excluding Resident #12 who was bedbound. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) (method of delivering complete nutrition directly into the blood stream through an intravenous (IV) line) was administered per physician orders. This affected one resident (#96) of two reviewed for TPN. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacist recommendations were address by the medical provider. This affected one resident (Resident #105) of five residents reviewed for medication use. The facility census was 107. Findings Include: Resident #105 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a stroke, diabetes, high blood pressure, end stage renal disease dependent on dialysis, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #105 revealed she received dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On 02/23/26 an order was written for Ativan (an antianxiety medication) 1 milligram (mg), Benadryl (an antihistamine) 50 mg, and Haldol (an antipsychotic) 1 mg gel. The medication was also referred to as ABH gel. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #24 and Resident #121 was free from significant medication error. This affected two residents (#24 and #121) of three reviewed for medications as physician ordered. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended at the bedside. This affected one Resident (#1), of three observed for unattended medications. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy the facility failed to ensure labs were completed as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #29) of five residents reviewed for lab services. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews, review of facility policy, and review of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for transmission-based precautions, the facility failed to follow infection control standards during wound care, which affected one resident (#9) out of five reviewed for pressure ulcers. In addition, the facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while providing care to residents on contact isolation, which affected one resident (#81) out of four identified by the facility as having orders for contact isolation. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of facility policy for influenza vaccine, the facility failed to administer the influenza vaccine to Resident #3 after consent was given. This affected one resident (#3) out of five reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, Self-Reported Incident review, review of witness statements, review of police incident report, review of Resident Funds Management Service statement landscape and withdrawal record, review of cashed checks, review of emails, personnel record review, disciplinary action review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to protect residents right to be free from misappropriation of resident property and/or exploitation. This affected 13 residents (#6, #8, #9, #12, #32, #43, #57, #67, #83, #87, #97, #105, and #107) of 66 residents who had a resident funds account during January 2025 and September 2025. The census was 102. Findings Include:Review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) dated 09/02/25 revealed an allegation of misappropriation when staff notified the Administrator of suspected misappropriation of resident funds. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, nursing staff schedule review, disciplinary action review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to implement a person-center care plan to support the behavioral health care needs of Resident #1. This affected one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for behavioral health. The census was 102.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an individualized care plan was developed for Resident #1 to address the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to identify triggers and interventions to minimize risk of re-traumatization. This affected one resident (#1) of three residents reviewed for care planning. The facility identified one resident (Resident #1) as having PTSD. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure visibly soiled bedding was changed in a timely manner affecting Resident #76. The facility also failed to ensure the south wing shower room wall was maintained in good repair. This had the potential to affect 35 residents (#5, #9, #21, #24, #27, #30, #31, #37, #38, #41, #44, #48, #49, #52, #56, #65, #66, #68, 69, #71, #72, #74, #82, #84, #92, #95, #97, #99, #100, #101, #102, #104, #108, 109, and #114) of 38 residents that use the south wing shower room. The facility census was 115.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comfortable room temperatures for Resident #20 and Resident #113. This finding affected two residents (Residents #20 and #113) of 115 residents who reside in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #200's scattered bruises were comprehensively assessed and monitored to include descriptions, measurements, and progression. This finding affected one resident (#200) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure resident records were protected and only accessed by authorized individuals. This affected one resident (#3) of three residents reviewed for safe record keeping. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure alleged abuse events were reported and investigated appropriately. This affected one resident (#19) of five residents reviewed for abuse prohibition. The facility census was 125.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of video/audio camera recordings, review of a fire department cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) report, review of a facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI), review of the facility policy for call lights, review of the facility policy for resident condition change, review of the redcross.org Adult Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Steps reference, and interviews, the facility failed to timely and appropriately respond to Resident #118's calls for assistance and failed to provide adequate assistance/intervention as the resident was experiencing a change in condition/respiratory distress. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and serious life-threatening harm/subsequently death beginning on [DATE] at 6:59 A.M. when staff failed to provide timely and appropriate care after Resident #118 pushed her call light and began yelling out for the nurse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, video/audio footage review, review of a facility self-reported incident, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure allegations of neglect were timely reported to the State agency. This affected one resident (#118) of two residents reviewed for death. The census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of the audio/video footage, interview and policy review, the facility failed to accurately document Resident #118's condition change and care provided in the resident's medical record. This affected one resident (#118) of two residents reviewed for death. The facility census was 112.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical abuse was reported to the state agency as required. This affected one resident (#9) of three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and misappropriation. The facility census was 113.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure consistent safe storage of smoking materials. This affected two residents (Resident #4 and #52) of two residents reviewed for smoking with the potential to affect all 16 Residents who are independent smokers (Residents #4, #12, #31, #35, #52, #82, #89, #90, #96, #99, #104, #112, #116, #118, #141 and #277). The facility census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed foods were prepared to the appropriate consistency. This affected eight residents (Residents #11, #29, #55, #58, #59, #60, #84 and #105) receiving a pureed diet. The facility census was 116 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, maintenance log review, and staff interview the facility failed to maintain resident rooms in a safe and functional condition. This affected four residents (Resident #11, #23, #42, #55) of 116 residents observed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide spend-down letters for each month the resident was over the resource limit. This affected three residents (Residents #9, #13 and #93) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 116 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were consistent across electronic and paper medical records. This affected two residents (Resident #23 and Resident #105) of two residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 116 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care to Resident #22. This affected one resident (Resident #22) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide catheter care in a manner to prevent infection. This affected one (Resident #44) of two residents reviewed for catheters. The facility census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide nutritional juice supplement to Resident #79 that was ordered due to a significant weight loss. This affected one resident (Resident #79) of eight residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of transfer to the resident and/or representative(s) upon hospital transfer/discharge. This affected three residents (Residents #2, #57 and #123) of four residents reviewed for discharges/transfers with hospitalizations. The facility census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of bed hold duration to the resident and/or representative(s) at the time of discharge/transfer to the hospital. This affected three residents (Residents #57, #2 and #123) of four residents reviewed for discharges with hospitalizations. The facility census was 116.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen and nursing unit refrigerators, as well as ensure hair restraints were worn in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all but three residents (Residents #14, #74 and #88) who received nothing by mouth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pureed chicken was prepared according the recipe. This had the potential to affect seven residents (Residents #3, #10, #47, #75, #79, #93 and #305) who received pureed diets.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate portion sizes were served for the mechanical soft chicken. This had the potential to affect 29 residents (Residents #2, #4, #7, #8, #11, #15, #20, #24, #25, #28, #29, #31, #36, #38, #50, #58, #59, #63, #69, #70, #73, #81, #86, #89, #96, #100, #101, #105 and #156) who received a mechanical soft diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach and accessible for Residents #46 and #51. This affected two Residents (#46 and #51) of 32 residents reviewed for call light placement. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure code status matched in both the electronic medical record and the hard chart. This affect one Resident (#88) of 34 residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Residents #39 and #94's toilets were cleaned and Resident #88's respiratory suction machine and stand were cleaned. This affected three residents (Residents #39, #94 and #88) but had the potential to affect all 104 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify and provide written notice to the residents and/ or their responsible parties of the residents transfer to the hospital and failed to ensure the ombudsman was aware of the residents transfer out of the facility. This affected three residents (Residents #26, #83 and #107) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify and provide written notice to the residents and/ or their responsible parties of the facility's bed-hold policy. This affected three residents (Residents #26, #83 and #107) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 104.
33 fire safety citations on file: 6 on June 9, 2026, 12 on September 14, 2023, 15 on January 30, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 9, 2026 | Fine | $27,378 |
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) | 3.43 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.92 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.69 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 67.3% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 81.3% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.65 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 3.56 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.35 in April to June 2025 to 3.43 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 | 3.43 | 0.83 | 3.56 | 3.13 | 1.7% | 0 of 90 | 108 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.84 | 3.55 | 3.06 | 1.6% | 0 of 92 | 106 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.36 | 0.78 | 3.43 | 3.18 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.35 | 0.69 | 3.46 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 110 |
| 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 | 0.6 | 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 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.5 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Heights Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.6% 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. 47 eligible stays.
10.8% 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.
7.1% 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. 29 eligible stays.
66.7% 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. 21 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.
1.7% 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: THE HEIGHTS REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Crown Healthcare Group, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crown Ohio Holdco II LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/01/2019 |
| Daubenmire, Kevin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/06/2025 | |
| Elkins Way LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/31/2022 | |
| Daubenmire, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/06/2025 | |
| Flanagan, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/14/2024 | |
| Mandat, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/04/2019 | |
| Fejcc Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/06/2025 | |
| Mdatas Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/06/2025 | |
| Mrs Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/06/2025 | |
| Daubenmire, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2025 | |
| Flanagan, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/14/2024 | |
| Mandat, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2019 | |
| Weintraub, Moshe | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2025 |
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.