8440 Livingston Road, Cincinnati, OH 45247 · Hamilton County · (513) 245-2100
93 certified beds, about 57 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2015
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366427 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 13, 2025, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 44 health citations since August 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 3.02 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
70.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide proper nail care. This affected two (Residents #41 and #56) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The facility census was 59 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility documents and policy, the facility failed to provide or arrange for proper foot care. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for foot care. The facility census was 59 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriately textured food which resident was able to tolerate. This affected one resident (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for specialized diets. The facility census was 59 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to monitor and evaluate residents in response to a change in condition. This affected one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 55 at the time of survey. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to home with family on 02/27/2026. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), chronic kidney disease (stage 3), Alzheimer's Disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and unspecified abdominal pain. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS of 09 out of 15, had no behaviors, and did not reject care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to administer medications in a safe and timely manner. This affected one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 55. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for aftercare following explantation of hip joint prosthesis and discharged to hospital on [DATE]. Diagnoses included infection and inflammatory reaction due to orthopedic prosthetic devices, acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins, type II diabetes mellitus, and radiculopathy of the lumbosacral region. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, was rarely/never understood, had no behaviors, and did not reject care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and review of staff job descriptions, the facility failed to designate a dedicated Registered Nurse (RN) to serve as the full time Director of Nursing (DON.) This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility communication with outside entities, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure confidentiality of residents' private health information. This affected one (Resident #82) of three residents reviewed for confidentiality. The facility census was 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop individualized comprehensive resident care plans. This affected one (Resident #80) of 11 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received appropriate bathing assistance. This affected one (Resident #85) of three residents reviewed for bathing assistance. The facility census was 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement physician orders for fracture and splint care and failed to implement orders for wound care. This affected two Residents (#80, #82) of 11 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility census was 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure falls were investigated in a timely manner. This affected two (Residents #82 and #84) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to properly label and store food as well as ensure expired products were disposed of. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except for Residents #12, #18, and #165 that were identified by the facility as having a diet of nothing by mouth. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident records were updated to reflect a change in their advance directives. This affected one Resident (#52) of the eight residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to routinely monitor the dialysis access site. This affected one Resident (#15) of two residents reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on review of the facility incident report, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately disposed of an insulin needle after use. This had the potential to affect one (#70) out of three residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with appropriate assistance and supervision during bed mobility which resulted in the resident having an avoidable fall from the bed. This affected one (#23) out of four residents reviewed for accidents. Facility census was 61. Findings Include: Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mood disorder, dementia, unsteady feet, and lack of coordination. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set, (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 had severely impaired cognition and was required total staff assistance for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interviews, review of facility policy, and review of guidelines from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), the facility failed to ensure physician-ordered and/or care planned interventions were implemented for the treatment of pressure ulcers, failed to thoroughly assess a resident's skin and failed to identify a resident's pressure ulcers until they had already reached an advanced stage. This resulted in Actual Harm to Resident #34 who was admitted to the facility without pressure ulcers and developed two avoidable unstageable pressure ulcers to the left foot. This affected one (#34) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff interview, review of facility policy, review of guidelines from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), and review of an online resources regarding pain in dementia residents, the facility failed to provide pain management interventions in accordance with the resident's care plan. This resulted in Actual Harm to Resident #34 who had acute fractures to her right distal tibia/fibula and two unstageable pressure ulcers to her left foot and the resident was not medicated for pain prior to wound care which resulted in the resident exhibiting signs of severe pain. This affected one (#34) of one residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to utilize the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least eight hours a day, seven days a week as required. This had the potential to affect all 68 residents residing at the facility. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, dietary spreadsheet review, and recipe review, the facility failed to ensure consistent portion sizes were served to residents and the facility failed to serve foods as planned on dietary spreadsheets. This had the potential to affect 66 of 66 residents residing in the facility who receive their meals from the kitchen, the facility identified two (#21 and #22) residents who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hairnets properly while preparing food. This had the potential to all 66 residents who eat their meals from the facility kitchen. The facility identified two residents (#21 and #22) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn in a COVID positive resident room and ensure contact precautions were in place for potentially positive symptomatic COVID 19 residents'. This had the potential to affect all 68 residents residing in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure staff practiced proper hand hygiene during meal tray pass. This affected 10 residents (#19, #31, #35, #36 #37, #39, #45, #50, #52, and #54) out of 38 residents who resided on the Blue Hall. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were bathed and assisted with getting out of bed per their preference. This affected two (#36 and #325) of two residents reviewed for choices. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected one (#71) of one residents reviewed for the physical environment. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility incident log, review of facility self-reported incidents (SRI's), staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). This affected one (#34) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility incident log, review of facility self-reported incidents (SRI's), staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown source. This affected one (#34) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide residents with notification of the bed hold policy when the resident was transferred/discharged to the hospital. This affected two (#09 and #61) out of two residents reviewed for bed hold notification. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/13/17. admission diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, morbid obesity, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, depression, and macular degeneration. Review of Resident #2's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15. Review of the MDS revealed Resident #2 required extensive one-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. The MDS revealed Resident #2 required supervision with set-up help for eating. Further review of section N revealed the resident received insulin, antidepressants, hypnotics, anticoagulants, diuretics and opioid's. Review of Resident #2's plan of care dated 10/25/22 revealed the resident was dependent on staff for emotional, physical, cognitive, well-being. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, physician and nurse practitioner (NP) interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a fracture was examined in a timely manner by a physician or provider. This affected one (34) of two residents reviewed for abuse concerns. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide nail care for dependent residents. This affected two (#34 and 36) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed ensure care was provided per the physician's orders. This affected two (#5 and #235) of 18 residents sampled. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, staff and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured and stored safely. This had the potential to affect three residents (#45, #53, and #35) who resided on the facility's Blue unit that are cognitively impaired and independently mobile. Additionally, the facility also failed to ensure a resident at risk for elopement did not elope from the facility. This affected one (#61) out of one resident reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained as ordered and according to the facility policy. Additionally, the facility also failed to ensure tube feeding was labeled and a syringe was replaced timely. This affected two (#71 and #36) of two residents reviewed for tube feeding. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to administer oxygen in accordance with a physician's order. This affected one (#36) of eight residents reviewed with orders for oxygen. Additionally, the facility also failed to ensure oxygen tubing was dated upon application. This affected three (#20, #29 and #36) of eight residents reviewed with orders for oxygen. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs by failing to appropriately monitor side effects of psychotropic medications. This affected two (#8 and #11) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as physician ordered resulting in two medication errors out of 34 errors or a 5.8 percent (%) medication error rate. This affected two (#19 and #31) of four residents observed for medication administration. The census was 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to administer intravenous antibiotics as physician orders for the treatment of a urinary tract infection (UTI) resulting in significant medication errors. This affected one (#21) of six residents reviewed for medications administration. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly secured, properly discarded and/or properly labeled. This affected three (#225, #9 and one one unknown resident) residents whose medication were left either unsecured, not properly labeled and not properly discarded. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, dietary spreadsheet review, recipe review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure recipes were followed when preparing pureed foods and also failed to ensure proper consistency of pureed foods in an effort to ensure pureed food items were palatable. This had the potential to affect three (#12, #33, and #71) of 68 residents who received a pureed diet. The facility census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on the unprecedented global pandemic that resulted in the Presidential declaration of a State of National Emergency dated 03/13/20, review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) memorandum QSO-23-02-ALL, review of the staff COVID-19 vaccination list, review of the staffing schedules, review of the facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure their employee COVID-19 vaccination rate was 100%. This had the potential to affect all 68 residents who resided in the facility. The census was 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) Submission Report review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to submit the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within the 14 days after completion of assessments. This affected two Residents (#1 and #2) out of two reviewed for resident assessment. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were accurate on the minimum data set (MDS) assessment. This affected one (#34) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to reconcile narcotics at the time of administration. This affected one (#42) of six residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to have a stop date for the use of as needed (prn) psychotropic medication. This affected one (#62) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified 45 residents currently receiving psychotropic medications. The facility census was 71.
14 fire safety citations on file: 9 on February 13, 2025, 2 on December 6, 2022, 3 on August 28, 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) | 3.02 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.65 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.62 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 70.4% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 77.8% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.33 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 3.17 on weekdays and 2.65 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.71 in April to June 2025 to 3.02 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 | 3.02 | 0.41 | 3.17 | 2.65 | 11.5% | 0 of 90 | 57 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.63 | 0.51 | 3.87 | 3.01 | 11.1% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.81 | 0.45 | 4.03 | 3.23 | 10.5% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.71 | 0.41 | 3.92 | 3.19 | 22.5% | 2 of 91 | 63 |
| 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 | 18.4 | 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 | 9.2 | 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 | 21.6 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.1 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.5 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Liberty Nursing Center of Colerain Inc's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (39.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 34 eligible stays.
8.7% 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. 56 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. 17 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. 18 residents counted.
3.2% 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. 31 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 30 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. 5 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: LIBERTY NURSING CENTER OF COLERAIN INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberty Nursing Centers Holding Company Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/03/2010 |
| Black-Kurek, Linda | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 11/03/2010 |
| Johnson, Dunisha | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/07/2020 | |
| Black-Kurek, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 11/03/2010 | |
| Black-Kurek, Linda | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/03/2010 | |
| Carpenter, Bruce | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/03/2010 |
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.