22709 Lake Rd, Rocky River, OH 44116 · Cuyahoga County · (440) 333-5400
150 certified beds, about 133 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365926 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 11, 2024, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since April 2019, 1 was 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 3.55 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.39 of those hours.
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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident record review, resident and family interviews, staff interviews, facility policy review, call light audit review, resident council meeting minutes review, and concern log review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were in reach for two residents (#31, #62) and also failed to ensure call lights were answered in a timely manner for eighteen residents (#6, #17, #20, #24, #27, #60, #61, #65, #68, #72, #89, #92, #94, #101, #110, #127, #133, #136). This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 136.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews and review of the employee handbook, the facility failed to ensure staff did not neglect resident care due to staff sleeping while on duty. This had the potential to affect all twenty-two residents (#3, #12, #14, #15, #20, #34, #43, #46, #51, #53, #55, #57, #64, #70, #79, #116, #119, #123, #124, #128, #131, #134) residing on the 500-Hall and had the potential to affect all twenty-three residents (#8, #9, #16, #17, #26, #31, #39, #47, #58, #59, #68, #72, #80, #85, #86, #88, #97, #103, #106, #117, #125, #127, #133,) residing on the 800-Hall. The facility census was 136.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to timely notify Resident #146's physician or nurse practitioner (NP) regarding the resident's decreased oral intake. This affected one resident (#146) of three residents reviewed for notification of change. The facility census was 136.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were consistently implemented for Resident #67. This affected one (#67) of one resident reviewed for EPB. The facility identified 27 additional residents (#2, #9, #12, #14, #16, #27, #32, #33, #36, #44, #50, #54, #59, #60, #63, #76, #79, #80, #82, #101, #105, #107, #108, #118, #123, #126, and #127) on EBP. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed following resident care. This affected two (#73 and #85) of two residents reviewed for personal care. The facility census was 127.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary dumpster area. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 126 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were developed and failed to ensure summaries of the baseline care plan were provided to the residents and/or their representatives. This affected two (Residents #120 and #67) out two residents who were reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility census was 126 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed regarding dressing changes for an enteral tube feeding site. This affected one (Resident #67) of one reviewed for enteral nutrition. The facility identified two Residents (#67 and #378) as receiving enteral nutrition feedings. The facility census was 126 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, observations, family interview, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure adequate fall interventions were in place to promote resident safety and prevent falls. Actual harm occurred on 12/05/23 when Resident #120, who was severely cognitively impaired and assessed at risk for falls, sustained an unwitnessed fall from a bed that was not in low position resulting in increased pain and hospitalization for traumatic sacral fractures with presacral edema and lumbar one and four compression fractures. The resident was not a candidate for invasive procedures and returned to the facility with hospice consultation orders. This affected three residents (#2, #88 and #120) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 117.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident interview, Ombudsman interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to deliver all of residents mail to them and or their authorized representative. The facility also failed to provide residents mail to them unopened. This affected five (#10, #36, #97, #122, and #123) of five reviewed for mail and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 117.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, Ombudsman interview and staff interview, the facility failed to provide timely monthly billing statements to a resident for care and services. This affected one (#97) of three residents reviewed for monthly billing statements. The facility census was 117.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, family interview, staff interview, and policy review, the failed to update to care plans to included fall interventions. This affected three (#2, #88, and #120) of three resident reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 117.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods were labeled, dated and not retained when expired. This had the potential to affect 118 residents receiving food from the facility's kitchen as Resident #13 was ordered nothing-by-mouth (NPO). The facility census was 119 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the high temperature dish machine reached the minimum rinse temperature required to ensure appropriate sanitation of dishes and utensils. This had the potential to affect 87 residents receiving meals from the kitchen (Resident #345 was ordered nothing-by-mouth). The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility policy review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Considerations for Preventing Spread of Covid-19, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to properly clean a shared glucometer between residents. This affected two (Resident's #79 and #64) of two residents reviewed for blood glucose monitoring. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication stored in the medication carts were not expired and insulin vials were labeled with the date opened. This affected nine residents (Resident #21, #24, #35, #39, #54, #64, #86, #87, and #245) and had the potential to affect all 88 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of the facility's menu spreadsheet the facility failed to serve portions as specified on the menu spreadsheet. This affected 27 residents including 19 residents on a mechanical soft diet (Residents #9, #13, #15, #18, #22, #33, #49, #55, #59, #65, #68, #73, #77, #78, #85, #88, #91, #246 and #445) and eight residents on a pureed diet (Residents #27, #34, #37, #44, #47, #56, #72 and #74). The facility census was 88 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident funds were disbursed in a timely manner for Resident #94 after death as required, and failed to provide a spend-down letter for Resident #6 when she was over the resource limit. This affected two residents (Resident #6 and Resident #94) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 88 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to prevent resident to resident sexual abuse. This affected affected four residents (Resident #35, Resident #39, #47, and #95) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse in a timely manner as required. This affected one resident (Resident #39) of three residents reviewed for reporting allegations of abuse. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed following the death of a resident. This affected one resident (Resident #1) of two reviewed MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a level two mental illness was screened by the appropriate state agency (The Ohio Department of Mental Health) for services and placement in the nursing facility. This affected one resident (Resident #90) of two residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) status Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #90 was initially admitted from the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with behavior, unspecified psychosis, and major depressive disorder. Review of the hospital exemption PASRR screening form dated 11/07/17 for Resident #90 did not reveal a level of mental illness and/or developmental disability. Interview on 04/12/22 at 10:00 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services and ensure physician orders were followed for one Resident #444 to prevent pressure ulcers from developing on the buttocks, thighs, and sacral area. This affected one resident (Resident #444) out of three residents reviewed for wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #78 wore a hand splint per physician order. This affected one resident (#78) out of two residents reviewed for positioning and range of motion (ROM).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure oxygen for one resident (Resident #93) was administered per physician orders. This affected one resident (Resident #93) out of three residents reviewed for oxygen administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation was contained in the medical record. This affected one (Resident #67) of four residents reviewed for documentation of medication administration. The facility census was 88.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nursing unit refrigerators were kept in sanitary conditions and proper storage of residents' food. This had the potential to affect all residents except Residents #86 and #242 who received nothing by mouth.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the interventions for a fall care plan were implemented, failed to ensure a resident with an order for hospice had a hospice care plan, and failed to ensure a resident's care plan was individualized regarding behaviors. This affected three residents (Resident #43, Resident #48, and Resident #39) of 30 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His admitting diagnoses included dementia, syncope, macular degeneration and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Functionally, the resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands between the assisting feeding of six residents (Residents #29, #36, #65, #75, #88 and #124) in the main dining room on the locked dementia unit and failed to ensure a catheter drainage bag for one resident (Resident #88) was kept off of the floor and out of danger of being stepped on. This had the potential to affect 13 additional residents (Residents #14, #23, #31, #33, # 41, #44, #63, #66, #87, #90, #91, #117, and 118) who ate in the main dining room on the dementia unit and eight additional residents (Residents #9, #14, #23, #66, #93, #94, #193, and #194) who had catheters in place. The facility census was 138.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for the use of oxygen. This affected one resident (Resident #55) of one resident reviewed for oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered medications were readily available in a timely manner for Resident #38. This affected one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 138. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #38 an admission date of 12/19/18 with diagnoses including fractured femur, dysphagia and high blood pressure. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance for her activities of daily living. Review of the nursing progress notes for Resident #38 noted Resident #38 was admitted at approximately 9:00 P.M. on 12/19/18 and all admitting medication and related orders were verified with Resident #38's physician on 12/19/18 at 10:34 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure documentation of Resident #55's oxygen saturation was accurate. This affected one resident (Resident #55) of one resident reviewed for oxygen. Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His admitting diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, pneumonitis due to inhalation of food, acute respiratory failure, Methicillin resistant staphylococcus, repeated falls, pain in right shoulder, major depressive disorder, and carcinoma in situ of the prostate. Review of this resident's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Functionally, he required extensive assistance for most activities of daily living including bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the outside dumpsters were maintained in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 138.
19 fire safety citations on file: 8 on July 11, 2024, 2 on April 15, 2022, 9 on April 25, 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) | 3.55 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.39 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.18 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.24 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.93 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 3.70 on weekdays and 3.18 on weekends, 14% 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 3.57 in April to June 2025 to 3.55 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 | 3.55 | 0.39 | 3.70 | 3.18 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 133 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.10 | 0.41 | 3.24 | 2.73 | 0.1% | 3 of 92 | 129 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.49 | 0.43 | 3.66 | 3.05 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 130 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.57 | 0.42 | 3.80 | 3.00 | 0.3% | 0 of 91 | 133 |
| 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 | 2.3 | 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 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.1 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.0 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.5 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Normandy Manor of Rocky River's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.7% 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. 92 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 97 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 56 eligible stays.
45.2% 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. 42 residents counted.
1.9% 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. 52 residents counted.
1.7% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 52 residents counted.
100.0% this home
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. 23 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: NORMANDY II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orlean, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 59% | 12/01/1991 |
| Orlean, Debra Sue | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 12/01/1993 |
| Orlean, Susan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 12/01/1993 |
| Orlean, David | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/1993 | |
| Shula, Matthew | Corporate director | Individual | 10/19/2008 | |
| Sovereign Rocky River, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2004 | |
| Connolly, Emily | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/11/2022 | |
| Kubinski, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/16/2022 | |
| Orlean, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/1993 | |
| Normandy II, Inc. | General partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/1991 | |
| Normandy II, Inc. | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/01/1993 | |
| Orlean, David | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 12/01/1991 | |
| Orlean, Debra Sue | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 12/01/1993 | |
| Orlean, Susan | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 12/01/1993 | |
| Connolly, Emily | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/11/2022 | |
| Orlean, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/1993 | |
| Orlean, Debra Sue | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/1993 | |
| Orlean, Susan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/1993 | |
| Patel, Kishor | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2022 |
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.