1104 Wesley Avenue, Bryan, OH 43506 · Williams County · (419) 636-5071
149 certified beds, about 67 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365830 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 11, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since April 2022, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $65,407 in the last three years; the largest was $65,407, and the latest is dated January 11, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.24 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.51 of those hours.
45.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Majestic Care, an affiliated group of 26 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 medical record review, facility financial account review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure remaining fund balances were dispersed to residents at the time of discharge from the facility. This affected two (#1, #7) of three residents reviewed for disbursement of fund account balances in a facility census of 61.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received timely copies of their medical records. This affected two (#75 and #77) of three residents reviewed for medical record requests. The facility census was 64.1. Review of the medical record for Resident #75 revealed an admission date of 10/10/25 with diagnoses of heart failure, anxiety, edema, depression, and hypertension. Resident #75 discharged to the community on 04/02/26. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/30/26, revealed Resident #75 had severely impaired cognition. Review of the comprehensive admission MDS assessment, dated 10/2025, revealed Resident #75 had intact cognition. Interview on 06/24/26 at approximately 4:00 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Self-Reported Incidents (SRIs), staff interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse and injuries of unknown origin were thoroughly investigated. This affected two (#80 and 81) of nine residents reviewed for self-reported incidents. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure residents were timely assessed after alleging abuse. This affected one (#80) of nine residents reviewed for self-reported incidents. The facility census was 64.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place and fall interventions were reviewed and revised as needed, and failed to accurately document the use of fall interventions. This affected one (#31) of three residents reviewed for falls. Additionally, the facility failed to implement their policy regarding post-fall procedures when a fall was reported by family. This affected one (#77) of three residents reviewed for falls. Finally, the facility failed to show evidence of investigations into a fall with injury. This affected two (#31 and #76) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 64. 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene and failed to use proper technique during foley catheter care. This affected one (#51) resident out of one resident observed for foley catheter care. The census was 64.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of hospital records, review of investigation statements, review of interdisciplinary investigation notes, staff and resident interviews, review of a mechanical lift owner's manual, review of a mechanical lift sling owner's manual, review mechanical lift safety inspections, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #02 was safely transferred using a mechanical lift resulting in an avoidable fall. This resulted in Actual Harm on 08/07/25 when Resident #02 was not safely transferred resulting in a mechanical lift tipping and the resident suffering an avoidable fall sustaining a right hip fracture requiring surgical repair. This affected one (#02) of four residents reviewed for accidents. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility menu with spread sheets, the facility failed to ensure residents on a mechanically altered diet received the same portions as the residents who received a regular diet. This had the potential to affect the 24 residents (#9, #10, #11, #13, #15, #17, #18, #21, #22, #23, #27, #30, #35, #38, #39, #53, #54, #57, #60, #63, #64, #66, #76 and #84) who received mechanically altered diet. The facility census was 77. Findings Include: Observations on 12/09/25 at 11:17 A.M. of the texture modification process for the pureed turkey meat found ten, three ounce (3 oz) #10 scoops of turkey were added to the food processor. Dietary Staff (DS) #235 then added turkey gravy and slices of bread to thin, blend, and thicken the processed meat. Observations on 12/09/25 at 11:22 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure wound care orders were in place for a resident's wounds upon admission. This affected one resident (#83) of four residents reviewed for wound care and treatment. The facility census was 77. Findings Include: Review of Resident #83's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/01/25 and a discharge date of 12/08/25. Diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, type II diabetes, chronic pain, nicotine dependence, severe protein calorie malnutrition, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #83's admission Skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #83 had a sacrum area crusted measuring 5 centimeters (cm) by 4 cm into the second layer of skin and a right gluteal fold area 1.5 cm by 1 cm into the second layer of skin. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who were identified as at risk for constipation had interventions implemented when they went longer than three days without a bowel movement. This affected one Resident (#5) of three residents reviewed of constipation. The facility census was 77. Findings Include: Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/14/21. Diagnoses included spinal stenosis, history of stroke, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, bipolar disorder, fibromyalgia, constipation, and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating Resident #5 was cognitively intact. Resident #5 was dependent on staff for toilet use, bathing, dressing, bed mobility and transfers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, and resident, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to timely implement physician's orders for Resident #3's pressure ulcer dressing change and failed to ensure the physician/provider was notified regarding the presence of eschar to Resident #7's heel ulcer and the potential need to change the treatment plan. This affected two (#3 and #7) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The current census is 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure catheter drainage bags were maintained below the level of the bladder to allow proper gravity drainage for one resident (#54) of one resident reviewed for catheter care. The facility census was 77. Findings Include:Record review for Resident #54 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus (high sugar), and obstructive and reflux uropathy (inability to urinate normally due to blockage). Record review for Resident #54 revealed the resident had impaired cognition and required partial to moderate assistance with indwelling catheter care. Review of physician orders for Resident #54 revealed order dated 07/24/25 for a suprapubic (catheter inserted directly into the bladder with surgery) catheter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident's diet orders were followed as written. This affected one (Resident #9) of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 77. Findings Include: Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/01/25. Diagnoses included abnormal weight loss, anxiety disorder, asthma, heart failure, osteoarthritis, cognitive communication deficit, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 indicating Resident #9 was cognitively intact. Resident #9 required moderate assistance with toilet use, bathing, parts of dressing, and transfer. Resident #9 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Resident #9 received a mechanically altered diet. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation of medication administration, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a seizure medication was administered as ordered which resulted in a significant medication error. This affected one (Resident #20) of nine residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on review of Self-Report Incidents (SRI), review of open and closed medical records, review of facility incident reports, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to prevent resident to resident sexual abuse. This affected two (#8 and #12) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing interventions were implemented to promote discharge from the facility were provided. This affected one (#4) of four sampled residents reviewed for discharge opportunity. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions and monitoring were provided to a resident following difficulty consuming meal. This affected one (#3) of three sampled residents reviewed for meal time assistance in a facility census of 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff and resident interview, and facility bowel and bladder management policy, the facility failed to provide and implement interventions to address specific resident incontinence needs. This affected one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for incontinence maintenance. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and review of staffing schedules, the facility failed to ensure staffing included the services of a registered nurse (RN) in-house for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. This had the potential to affected all 90 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility wound care policy, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer wound dressings and preventative interventions were implemented as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for skin integrity and wound prevention in a facility census of 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility administration and documentation of medication policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were provided as ordered by the physician. This resulted in a significant medication error when a resident was not administered an antipsychotic medication as prescribed. The affected one (#4) of three residents reviewed for medications in a facility census of 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, resident interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents dependent for care received showers as scheduled or per request. This affected one (#14) of four residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 90.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to remove molded foods from the refrigerator, store food off the floor, and discard expired foods. This had the potential to affect all 100 residents who received food from the kitchen. There was one resident (#84) identified by the facility as not receiving food from the kitchen. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident funds records and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident's funds were maintained under the Medicaid limit. This affected three residents (#02, #25, and #47) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record reviews, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to timely address the resident's skin impairments and failed to implement physician orders routinely to address the resident's skin conditions. This affected two (#21 and #68) of four residents reviewed for skin integrity. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to administer medications per physician which resulted in a significant medication error for one (#94) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, review of hospital records, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered labs were followed-up on and completed timely to identify a urinary tract infection (UTI) for Resident #110 who had a urinary catheter. Actual harm occurred on 12/07/23 when the facility failed to properly obtain a urine specimen for Resident #110 who was symptomatic of a urinary tract infection. Between 12/07/23 and 12/14/23 no additional testing or interventions to treat a urinary tract infection were provided. On 12/14/23 Resident #110's family transported the resident to the hospital where the resident was admitted and required intravenous (IV) antibiotics for treatment of a urinary tract infection. The resident was hospitalized for four days. This affected one resident (#110) of three residents reviewed for UTIs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely pharmacy response for medication refill requests. This affected one #40) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of the pharmacy services provider agreement, the facility failed to ensure medication prescribed to assist with lowering blood sugar was available and administered as ordered. This affected one (#40) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were kept secure at all times. This affected one (#97) of one residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure physician ordered laboratory services were completed in a timely manner. This affected one (#18) of three residents reviewed for laboratory services. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely physician notification of laboratory (lab) results. This affected one (#110) of three residents reviewed for physician notification. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during wound care. This affected three (#9, #40 and #85) of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI), review of facility corrective action documents, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not physically restrained. This affected one (#57) of five residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the medical record and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were completed as ordered. This affected one (#56) of four residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, review of facility policy and review of manufacturer's instructions, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This affected one (#90) of six residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident preferences for showers were honored. This affected one (Resident #6) of three residents reviewed for bathing/showers. The facility census was 105.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of facility corrective action documents, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident identified at risk for pressure ulcer development did not develop an in-house acquired stage III pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss) and received timely interventions to promote healing. Actual harm occurred when Resident #61 was discovered with a stage III pressure ulcer to the sacrum one day after being assessed with intact skin integrity and no documented intervention was implemented to promote healing or further tissue damage until three days following discovery. This affected one (#61) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care and treatment. The facility census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident trust account records, review of receipts, review of a withdrawal record document, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure funds were withdrawn from the appropriate resident account. This affected two (#12 and #123) of three residents reviewed for resident trust accounts. The facility census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of a facility investigation, staff interview, review of self-reported incidents, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to the State Survey Agency. This affected two (#12 and #105) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a cognitively impaired resident received adequate assistance with eating. This affected one (#61) of three residents reviewed for assistance with meals. The facility census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident at risk for incontinence received timely and adequate incontinence care following an episode of urinary incontinence. This affected one (#61) of three residents reviewed for incontinence. The census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to obtain weights per the plan of care and per the facility policy to assess residents for unplanned weight loss. This affected one (#61) of one residents reviewed for weight loss. The facility census was 109.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record reviews, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote dignity by ensuring a resident (#27) was provided with grooming and clean clothing and a dignified experience when responding to a resident's (#42) request for incontinence care. In addition, the facility failed to ensure seven (#12, #14, #18, #32, #42, #49, #61) were provided with eating assistance in a dignified manner. This affected eight (#12, #14, #18, #32, #27, #42, #49, #61) of 21 residents observed for the promotion of resident dignity. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations record reviews, policy reviews, interviews with resident representative, residents and staff, the facility failed to provide adequate staff to meet the residents needs. This affected twelve (#7, #12, #14, #18, #22, #27, #32, #42, #49, #61, #69) of 91 residents discovered to experience the lack of care and treatment related to insufficient nursing service staffing levels. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility census review, meal ticket reviews, food menus and spreadsheet review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate food servings sizes to residents who received the regular and pureed main lunch meal. This affected 25 (#4, #7, #9, #19, #25, #30, #31, #39, #40, #44, #47, #51, #53, #55, #58, #59, #63, #67, #68, #78, #79 #80, #83, #88, and #441) residents on the 100, 300, and 500 hall. In addition, the facility failed to honor Resident #10's food choices. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy the facility failed to store food in a safe and sanitary manner in the unused kitchen, main kitchen, and unit refrigerators. The facility identified one resident (#13) that does not receive food from the kitchen. The facility failed to ensure residents were provided with eating assistance in a manner to prevent food borne illness, infection, or cross contamination. This affected five residents (#12, #14, #18, #32, and #61) observed during meals. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, and review of exterminator invoices, the facility failed to effectively ensure there were no gnats in the facility. This affected 38 of 38 residents residing on the 500, 700, and 800 hall. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were provided to residents to alert staff to needs. This affected two (#41 and #60) of 91 residents in the facility. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's requests to get out of bed were honored. This affected one (#7) of one residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, personal funds account review, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from misappropriation. This affected one (#6) of seven residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, personal funds account review, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to timely report the potential misappropriation of property to the appropriate state agency. This affected one resident (#6) of seven residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, personal funds account review, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete an investigation of possible misappropriation of personal funds. This affected one (#6) of seven residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident representative and staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with timely and adequate bathing. This affected three (#7, #32, and #69) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility identified 66 residents that required assist of one or two staff for bathing and 21 residents who were dependent with bathing activities. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately assess and treat an existing pressure ulcer, implement care planned and physician ordered pressure relieving interventions, and accurately document wounds. This affected two (#22 and #61) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified a total of four residents with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care was provided. This affected two (#14 and #42) of six residents reviewed for the provision of incontinence interventions and assistance. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure nutritional supplements were provided as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#61) of four residents reviewed for the provision of nutritional interventions. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident on a fluid restriction had the fluid restriction noted on their meal ticket and properly communicated with staff providing meals. This affected one (#10) of one reviewed for dialysis. The facility identified one resident receiving dialysis. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#23) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure lost dentures were replaced timely for a resident. This affected one (#86) of one resident reviewed for dental care. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident received a meal served at a palatable, safe, and appetizing temperature. This affected two (#33 and #61) of 90 residents identified to received food from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed as required for State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs). This affected two (#572 and #576) of three STNAs whose personnel files were reviewed and had the potential to affect all 91 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 91.
25 fire safety citations on file: 11 on December 11, 2025, 9 on March 21, 2024, 5 on April 11, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 11, 2024 | Fine | $65,407 |
| January 11, 2024 | Payment Denial | 28 days from February 9, 2024 |
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) | 3.24 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.72 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.61 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.12 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.7% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 4 |
CMS expects 4.30 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 3.45 on weekdays and 2.72 on weekends, 21% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.42 in April to June 2025 to 3.24 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 | 3.24 | 0.51 | 3.45 | 2.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 67 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.22 | 0.39 | 3.34 | 2.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.45 | 3.42 | 2.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.42 | 0.40 | 3.54 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 71 |
| 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 | 2.8 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 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 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.0 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.7 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Majestic Care of Bryan's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (40.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
40.2% this home
Worse than 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. 69 eligible stays.
10.7% 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. 96 eligible stays.
6.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 43 eligible stays.
47.8% 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. 23 residents counted.
5.1% 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. 39 residents counted.
13.5% 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. 39 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. 11 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: BRYAN OH HEALTH & REHAB OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Majestic Care, a group of 26 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mdg Majestic Ohio Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/31/2024 |
| Marx, David | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Chamberlain, Margaret | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/11/2023 | |
| Pruitt, Paul | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Majestic Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/31/2024 | |
| Daiber, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Pruitt, Paul | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Rewa, Angela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Russell, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Shatrov, Anzhelika | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Staifer, Desiree | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Wolfe, Eric | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Bryan Oh Health & Rehab Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2024 | |
| Majestic Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/10/2025 | |
| Mdg Majestic Ohio Property Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2024 | |
| Daiber, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Marx, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Pruitt, Paul | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Rewa, Angela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Russell, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Shatrov, Anzhelika | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Staifer, Desiree | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Wolfe, Eric | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.