250 Manor Drive, Perrysburg, OH 43551 · Wood County · (419) 874-0306
111 certified beds, about 101 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366022 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 21, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 46 health citations since June 2021 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.54 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.74 of those hours.
39.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Hcf Management, an affiliated group of 22 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were completed as physician ordered. This affected one (#13) of one resident reviewed for wound treatments. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of meal tickets, staff and resident interviews, and review of Resident Council meeting minutes, the facility failed to ensure residents received menu items as selected at mealtime. This affected two (#11 and #15) of four residents reviewed for accuracy of meal tray food items. The facility census was 106.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure that residents were served together during dining in the memory care unit. This had the potential to affect all 24 residents who reside on the memory care unit. Additionally the facility failed to ensure a female resident was free from long facial hair. This affected one (#27) of one resident reviewed for facial hair. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the psychotropic education form was completed prior to starting medications. This affected one (#30) of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan included all resident care areas. This affected two (#77 and #98) of 26 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident fingernails were cleaned and groomed. This affected one (#68) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 96. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #68 revealed an admission date of 09/20/19 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depression. Review of the comprehensive annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/02/25, revealed Resident #68 had intact cognition and was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. Review of the current care plan, updated 07/10/25, revealed Resident #68 required staff participation with personal hygiene. Interview and observation on 08/18/25 at 9:11 A.M. revealed Resident #68 lying in bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely ensure a resident's wound was accurately assessed and documented. This affected one (#77) of two residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent skin breakdown were implemented as ordered by the physician. This affected one of two residents (#2) reviewed for pressure ulcer care prevention and treatment. The facility census of 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure post-fall assessments were completed, including neurological assessments. This affected two (#30 and #78) of four residents reviewed for falls. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention measures were in place for one (#12) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 96. Findings Include:1. Review of the medical record for Former Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 05/19/25 with diagnoses of type 1 diabetes mellitus, kidney transplant failure, and dependence on renal dialysis. Resident #53 discharged home with family on 08/08/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nutrition supplements were provided as ordered. This affected one (#50) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 96. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #50 revealed an admission date of 09/27/24 with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, type II diabetes mellitus, unspecified psychosis, and adult failure to thrive. Resident #50 was under the care of hospice. Review of the significant change comprehensive minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/21/25, revealed Resident #50 was rarely/never understood and was dependent for all activities of daily life. Review of the physician order dated 01/17/25 revealed Resident #50 received a nutrition supplement (Magic Cup) twice daily with meals. Interview on 08/21/25 at 10:08 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper equipment for residents with a tracheostomy were available at bedside. This affected one (#7) of one resident reviewed for a tracheostomy. Resident #7 was the only resident in the facility with a tracheostomy. The facility census was 96. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 03/15/25 with respiratory failure and tracheostomy status. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/05/25, revealed Resident #7 had intact cognition and had a tracheostomy. Review of the care plan initiated 03/15/25 for Resident #7 revealed to keep an extra tracheostomy tube and obturator (a curved rod designed to help the tracheostomy tube fit into the trachea) at bedside. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure pre and post dialysis assessments were completed. This affected one (#54) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, physician interview, staff interview, and review of Medscape website the facility failed to ensure residents were not given unnecessary medications. This affected one (#10) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nutrition assessments were completed timely. This affected one (#50) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 96. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #50 revealed an admission date of 09/27/24 with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, type II diabetes mellitus, unspecified psychosis, and adult failure to thrive. Review of the significant change comprehensive minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/21/25, revealed Resident #50 was rarely/never understood and was dependent for all activities of daily life. Review of the physician order dated 07/15/25 revealed Resident #50 was admitted to hospice. Review of the medical record revealed a quarterly nutrition progress note was completed on 04/29/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were practiced during tracheostomy care. This affected one resident (#7) observed for tracheostomy care. The facility identified only one resident with a tracheostomy in the facility. The facility census was 96. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 03/15/25 with respiratory failure, tracheostomy status, and history of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (a drug resistant bacteria) infection. Review of the current physician orders for August 2025 for Resident #7 revealed she did not have an order for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (precautions used to prevent infections for residents with areas of enhanced portals of entry such as tracheostomy or wounds). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility electronic medical record (EMR), review of external provider documents, staff interview, interview with external provider staff, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident timely received medications upon discharge. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure timely notification of Social Security (SS) of discharge. This affected one (#110) of three residents (#110, #112, and #114) reviewed for discharge rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered via feeding tube per physician orders. This affected one resident (#15) out of 6 residents reviewed for medications. The census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of the facility policies, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all nursing care was provided in accordance with standards and practices. This affected three residents (#15, #16, and #18) of three residents observed for medication administration. The current census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the facility policies, staff interview, and review of medical records, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate lower than 5%. The error rate on 03/26/24 was 19%, this affected three residents (#15, #17, and #18) of three residents observed for medication administration. The current census is 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of the facility policies, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to properly administer insulin medications per the manufacturer's guidelines. This affected one resident (#18) out of five residents observed receiving medications. The current census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical record, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered medications were available for administration. This affected two residents (#26 and #80) of five (#26, #71, #80, #89, and #93) residents reviewed for accurate medical records. The Facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility medical record, review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant mediation errors. This affected three residents (#26, #89, and #93) of five residents (#26, #71, #80, #89, and #93) reviewed for accurate medical records. The Facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure gloves were worn while administering subcutaneous insulin. This affected one resident (#71) of five (#26, #71, #80, #89, and #93) reviewed for medication administration. The facility identified 24 residents (#3, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10, #17, #26, #28, #29, #32, #39, #42, #50, #61, #65, #67, #69, #70, #71, #73, #79, #89, and #93) who were prescribed insulin. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician orders. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain controlled substance drug records. This affected four (#118. #24, #117, #84) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was timely completed. This affected one (#100) of three residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with assistive devices as ordered/care planned. This affected one (Resident #27) out of three residents reviewed for assistance with drinking. The facility census was 104.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were applied in accordance with physician orders and failed to ensure wound measurements were consistently and accurately maintained in the medical record. This affected one (#3) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer wound management and care. Facility census was 98.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was practiced during meal services. This directly affected five (#30, #93, #94, #100, and #307) residents and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except one resident (#38) the facility stated did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the manufacturer specifications, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided beds of the appropriate length. This affected one (Resident #101) of three reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 99. Findings Include: Review of Resident #101's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/18/23. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, hypertension, muscle weakness and encounter for orthopedic after care. Review of Resident #101's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating Resident #101 was cognitively intact. Resident #101 was independent with eating and oral care. Resident #101 required assistance from staff with dressing and mobility. Resident #101 was dependent on staff for toileting and bathing. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were consistent within the medical record. This affected two (Residents #74 and #258) of two residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician when a wound treatment was not completed. This affected one (Resident #257) of two residents reviewed for wounds. Additionally, the facility failed to notify the physician regarding ongoing complaints of elevated pain. This affected one (Resident #101) of one resident reviewed for pain. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, review of bathing documentation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident showers were completed as scheduled. This affected one (Resident #64) of two residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to complete an initial wound assessment and failed to complete wound treatments as ordered for one (Resident #257) of two residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to appropriately check the placement of a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube prior to administering medications. This affected one (Resident #357) of three residents reviewed for PEG tube medication administration. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed ensure pain interventions were in place for a resident. This affected one (Resident #101) of one resident reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure controlled pain medication administration was accurately documented throughout the resident's medical record. This affected one (#101) of one resident reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing direct care to a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This affected one (#357) of four residents reviewed for Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP). The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal vaccines were administered per CDC guidelines. This affected three (#11, #62, #64) of five residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccinations. The facility census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment when residents were provided a meal in the dining room on a meal tray. This affected 13 (#18, #19, #34, #38, #53, #54, #56, #61, #64 #89, #91, #92, and #96) of 13 residents observed in the dementia unit. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, review of precautionary label and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were appropriately implemented as care planned and failed to ensure medications and laundry detergent were maintained in a safe manner on the locked dementia unit. This deficient practice affected one (#204) resident reviewed for fall interventions and had the potential to affect ten (#16, #17, #18, #19, #26, #34, #53, #61, #91, and #93) residents the facility identified as independently mobile and cognitively impaired on the locked dementia unit. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of medical record, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity by hanging a sign with resident care needs above the resident's bed. This affected one (#100) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline or comprehensive care plan was developed within 48 hours of admission for a resident admitted with a urinary catheter. This affected one (#208) of one residents reviewed with urinary catheters. The facility identified eight residents with urinary catheters. The census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident participation in care conferences. This affected one (#5) of two residents reviewed for care conference participation. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide ongoing assistance with positioning in bed as indicated in the nursing plan of care. This deficient practice affected one (#11) of three residents reviewed for positioning. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide ongoing restorative nursing services in accordance with physical therapy recommendations. This deficient practice affected one (#11) of 24 residents reviewed for range of motion and treatment. The facility census was 100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident admitted with a urinary catheter had a physician order for use and failed to ensure care was provided for the urinary catheter. This affected one (#208) of one residents reviewed with urinary catheters. The facility identified eight residents with urinary catheters. The census was 100.
11 fire safety citations on file: 7 on August 21, 2025, 2 on November 30, 2023, 2 on June 10, 2021.
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) | 3.54 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.22 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.08 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.74 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 3.66 on weekdays and 3.22 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.54 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 | 3.54 | 0.74 | 3.66 | 3.22 | 0.3% | 0 of 90 | 101 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.68 | 0.62 | 3.83 | 3.30 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.62 | 0.66 | 3.78 | 3.22 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.75 | 3.68 | 3.01 | 0.4% | 0 of 91 | 101 |
| 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 | 3.5 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.3 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.8 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Manor at Perrysburg's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.1% 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. 54 eligible stays.
10.1% 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.
6.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 38 eligible stays.
48.3% 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. 29 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. 42 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 42 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: HCF OF PERRYSBURG, INC.. CMS links this home to Hcf Management, a group of 22 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chad M. Unverferth 12-14-11 Irrv Grantor Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 12/13/2021 |
| David V. Unverferth 12-14-11 Irrv Grantor Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 12/13/2021 |
| Jeffrey L. Unverferth 12-14-11 Irrv Grantor Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joann C. Unverferth 12-29-04 Revocable Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 5% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joann C. Unverferth 12-31-12 Irrevocable Grantor Trust Fbo Kendra M. U | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joann C. Unverferth 12-31-12 Irrevocable Grantor Trust Fbo Kerri a. Ro | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joann C. Unverferth 12-31-12 Irrevocable Grantor Trust Fbo Kevan R. Un | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joann C. Unverferth 12-31-12 Irrevocable Grantor Trust Fbo Kristen S. | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joann C. Unverferth 12-31-12 Irrevocable Grantor Trust Fbo Kyle J. Unv | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 12/13/2021 |
| Joseph L. Unverferth 12-15-11 Irrv Grantor Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 12/13/2021 |
| Lawrence G. Unverferth 12-13-11 Irrv Grantor Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 12/13/2021 |
| R. Steven Unverferth 12-14-11 Irrv Grantor Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 12/13/2021 |
| Klay, Celeste | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Romes, Kerri | Corporate director | Individual | 03/29/2019 | |
| Klay, Celeste | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Romes, Kerri | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2019 | |
| Shaw, Anthony | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/26/2015 | |
| Hcf Management, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2004 | |
| Romes, Kerri | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2019 | |
| Romes, Kerri | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2019 |
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.