850 East Midlothian Blvd, Youngstown, OH 44507 · Mahoning County · (330) 788-3038
99 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365795 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 15, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 43 health citations since May 2021, 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 3.79 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
44.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to David Oberlander, an affiliated group of 7 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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40 was provided with timely care and services following a fall. This finding affected one (Resident #40) of three residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary homelike environment. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility did not ensure safe smoking practices within the facility for Residents #67 and #34. This affected two residents (#67 and #34) out of two residents reviewed for smoking. The facility census was 92. Findings Include:1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, disorders of bone density and structure, rheumatoid arthritis, pain in left hip, patient's noncompliance with other medical treatment and regimen due to unspecified reason, mental disorder, major depressive disorder, acquired absence of the right leg below the knee, tobacco use, anxiety disorder, and hypertension. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a safe fashion. This affected one resident (#43) of 92 residents observed for medications at the bedside. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility to ensure call lights were in reach. This affected two residents (#24 and #41) of 92 residents observed for call lights. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven residents (#7, #25, #44, #50, #52, #61, and #85) as receiving nothing by mouth. The census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and review of facility policies, facility menu, and job descriptions, the facility administration failed to ensure there was an adequate supply of emergency food and water on hand as required. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents in the facility. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu as written. This affected two residents (#5 and #89) of five residents reviewed for nutrition and had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen excluding seven residents (#7, #25, #44, #50, #52, #61 and #85) who the facility identified as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure palatable food was served to all residents. This affected three residents (#36, #39 and #45) of five residents reviewed for nutrition and had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven residents (#7, #25, #44, #50, #52, #61, and #85) as not receiving anything by mouth. The census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure the memory care unit environment was maintained in a clean, comfortable and homelike manner. This had the potential to affect all 22 residents (Residents #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #12, #13, #16, #23, #32, #40, #55, #58, #62, #64, #67, #71, #72, #75, #85, #86, and # 94) living on the memory care unit out of 94 residents living in the facility. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of the Hydrion Test Strip instructions the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen to prepare food in a manner to prevent contamination and food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents (#15, #16, #18, #28 and #31) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to provide palatable food when gelatine was served in a liquid form. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified five residents (#15, #16, #18, #28 and #31) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program for Resident #101 to prevent the development of a facility acquired pressure ulcer to the back of the resident's neck. Actual Harm occurred on 02/27/24 when Resident #101, who was cognitively impaired, ventilator dependent, at risk for pressure ulcer development and required total dependence on staff for bed mobility and all activities of daily living, was assessed on 02/27/24 by Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #703 to have a Stage IV (full thickness skin and tissue loss) facility acquired pressure ulcer with correction of the staging completed on 03/05/24 to an unstageable (full thickness loss of tissue completely covered by dead tissue) pressure ulcer to his rear neck found under his tracheostomy ties. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure all residents were treated with dignity and respect at all times due to multiple staff members not wearing name badges while on duty in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 96 residents living in the facility. The facility census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was staffed with sufficient, competent support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services for resident food production and service. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen except four residents (Resident #22, #73, #79 and Resident #80) who did not receive nutrition by mouth. The census was 94 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to dispose of garbage/refuse appropriately. This had the potential to affect all 94 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #30, #35, #237 and #440 were treated in a dignified and respectful manner including covering their indwelling catheter drainage bags. This affected four residents (Resident #30, #35, 237, and Resident #440) of seven residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain all resident rooms in a clean and comfortable manner. This affected six residents (Resident #12, #21, #187, #27, 50, and Resident #10) of 24 residents reviewed for physical environment. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete resident assessments within the required times frame for Resident #439. This affected one resident (#439) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to complete in a timely manner a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for Resident #82. This affected one resident (#82) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate and physician ordered care and services to promote wound healing for Resident #57. This affected one resident (Resident #57) of two residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered for Resident #19. This affected one resident (#19) of three residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration and wound care for residents #57, #64, and #443, and failed to ensure a urinary catheter drainage bag was off the floor for Resident #440. This affected four residents (#57, #64, #443, and #440) of 24 residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interview the facility failed to maintain appropriate pest control to prevent infestation. This affected two (Resident #30, #52) of 24 residents reviewed for physical environment. The facility census was 94.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview, the facility failed to check all employees against the State Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to or on their first day of work/hire to ensure the employee did not have a finding entered in the NAR concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property as required. This had the potential to affect all 94 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Dietary Manager #553 met the minimum qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. This had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food prepared at facility (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient kitchen staff were available to prepare resident meals and snacks, serve resident meals, and maintain a clean and sanitary environment in the kitchen. This affected all 87 residents who received meals prepared in the facility kitchen (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu and food choice alternates were available for residents to review in order to meet the resident's needs and food preferences. This affected one (Resident #194) of one resident reviewed for food choices and meal service, and had the potential to affect all 87 residents (Residents #31 and #58 received nothing by mouth) who received meals prepared at the facility. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon resident council's concerns regarding the provision of snacks. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, #79, #80, #81, and #83) residents who attended resident council meetings, and had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food from the facility (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food under sanitary conditions to prevent contamination and potential food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all 87 residents (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth).who were provided meals prepared in the facility kitchen. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure staff competencies necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population were included in the facility assessment. This had the potential to affect all 89 facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon resident council's concern regarding the provision of snacks. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, #79, #80, #81, and #83) residents, and had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food from the facility (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility did not ensure adequate cleaning of the resident rooms or common areas. The facility also failed to ensure laundry was washed and dried in a timely manner. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, #79, #80, #82, and #83) of 24 residents reviewed for their living environment. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop care plans relative to ventilator care, dialysis care, and psychotropic drug use. This affected four (Residents #54, #59, #65, and #191) of ten residents reviewed for ventilator and dialysis care needs, and unnecessary medications. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nutritional assessments were completed in a timely manner for five (Residents #9, #22, #30, #70, and #75 ) of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and test tray evaluation, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods to conserve nutritional value and palatablity. This affected 13 residents, including 10 (Residents #4, #7, #16, #21, #22, #41, #71, #75, #76, and #193) of 10 residents who received a pureed diet, as well as Residents #27, #28, and #194. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and pureed food sampling, the facility failed to puree food to the correct consistency. This affected 10 (Residents #4, #7, #16, #21, #22, #41, #71, #75, #76, and #193) of 10 residents who received a pureed diet at the facility. The facilty census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident's hearing aides were replaced timely. This affected one (Resident #73) of one resident reviewed for missing hearing aides. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a nutritional progress note was completed and interventions implemented after one resident had a recurring Stage II pressure ulcer found on the right buttock. This affected one (Resident #4) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care and services. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteThe facility failed to ensure all nurses were trained regarding ventilator care and related documentation. This had the potential to affect one (Residents #59) of three residents reviewed for ventilator care. The facility census was 89 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain its dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 89 facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate incontinence care was provided in a manner to prevent cross contamination and infection. This affected one (Resident #63) of one resident reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 89 residents.
28 fire safety citations on file: 11 on January 15, 2026, 7 on June 8, 2023, 10 on May 14, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 13, 2024 | Payment Denial | 39 days from April 6, 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) | 3.79 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.30 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.19 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.10 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.9% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.97 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 3.99 on weekdays and 3.30 on weekends, 17% 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 3.77 in April to June 2025 to 3.79 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 | 3.79 | 0.50 | 3.99 | 3.30 | 0.0% | 1 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.71 | 0.45 | 3.86 | 3.34 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.78 | 0.47 | 3.96 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 94 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.77 | 0.55 | 3.94 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 1 of 91 | 90 |
| 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 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.4 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.9 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.3 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Oasis Center for Rehabilitation and Healing's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.3% 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. 36 eligible stays.
10.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 50 eligible stays.
5.9% 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. 25 eligible stays.
65.8% 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. 41 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. 78 residents counted.
7.0% 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. 78 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. 14 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: OASIS NURSING LLC. CMS links this home to David Oberlander, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quartex LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 08/15/2018 |
| Sam Investments LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 18% | 08/15/2018 |
| Fink, Boruch | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 08/15/2018 |
| Friedman, Joseph | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 08/15/2018 |
| Oberlander, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 08/15/2018 |
| Oberlander, Sholem | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 18% | 08/15/2018 |
| Neginah Orchestra LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/15/2018 | |
| Steinberg Family Trust | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/15/2018 | |
| Steinberg, Bernard | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/18/2018 | |
| Friedman, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Oberlander, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/15/2018 | |
| Byf Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/02/2025 | |
| Quartex LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/15/2018 | |
| Sam Investments LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/15/2018 | |
| Fink, Boruch | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/02/2018 | |
| Rich, Frank | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/02/2018 | |
| Valiquette, Ryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2021 | |
| Byf Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/05/2025 | |
| Quartex LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/18/2018 | |
| Sam Investments LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/18/2018 | |
| Rich, Frank | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/16/2025 | |
| Valiquette, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/16/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.