12469 Five Point Road, Perrysburg, OH 43551 · Wood County · (419) 931-0050
60 certified beds, about 54 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2013
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366410 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 26, 2025, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since May 2021, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $40,433 in the last three years; the largest was $40,433, and the latest is dated October 11, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.82 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.65 of those hours.
50.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Commonspirit Health, an affiliated group of 18 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, facility policy review and review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident #273370, the facility failed to ensure two staff were present during resident transfers using a mechanical lift. This affected one (#16) of three residents reviewed for mechanical lift transfers. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of meal order ticket, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide meals per resident preferences. This affected one (#11) of one resident reviewed for food preferences and had the ability to affect all residents that receive food from the kitchen. The facility identified all 51 residents receive meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure discontinued narcotics were properly disposed of in a timely manner. This affected eight (#28, #30, #38, #62, #63, #65, #70, and #71) of eight residents reviewed for narcotic medications and who had the narcotic medication discontinued. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received feeding assistance in a dignified manner. This affected one (#56) of three residents reviewed for feeding assistance. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, review of a personnel file, review of camera footage, policy review, and review of Self-Reported Incident #272120 the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse. This affected two (#11 and #65) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, personnel file review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of verbal abuse to the state agency as required. This affected one (#65) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, personnel file review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of verbal abuse. This affected one (#65) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering as needed psychotropic medications to residents. This affected three (#11, #30, and #60) of four residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the daily menu, the facility failed to ensure residents on a pureed diet received the planned menu. This affected three (#11, #15, and #56) of three residents identified on a pureed diet. The facility census was 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff were trained on the use of mechanical lifts. This affected one (#25) of three residents reviewed for mechanical lift use. The facility identified 28 residents who were dependent on a mechanical lift for transfers. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, review of Resident Council meeting minutes, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent for care received showers as scheduled. This affected three (#1, #25, and #31) of three residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, review of the medical record, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care. This affected one (#1) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on family, provider, and staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure transportation to medical appointments. This affected one (#31) of three residents reviewed for outside medical appointments. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the dietary spreadsheets (DS), medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure correct portion sizes for meals. This affected one (#3) of three residents reviewed for portion sizes. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wrote3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #42 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute diastolic heart failure, essential hypertension, and osteoarthritis. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 05/16/25, revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required partial/moderate assistance with toileting, showering, lower and upper body dressing, personal hygiene, and applying footwear. Observation on 06/23/25 at 9:27 A.M. revealed Resident #42 in the recliner chair in the resident room and the call light on the floor near the bed. The call light was not within reach. Interview on 06/23/25 at 9:29 A.M. with Resident #42 verified she utilizes her call light. Interview on 06/23/25 at 9:30 A.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #284 verified the call light was on the floor and not within reach of the resident. Interview on 06/25/25 at 2:09 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician of medication error. This affected one resident (#54) reviewed for notification to provider of a change. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure podiatry care services. This affected one (#22) of one resident reviewed for podiatry. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This affected one (#54) resident reviewed for medication error. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure significant medications were administered as ordered. This affected one (#54) resident reviewed for significant medication error. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of late medication report, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in a timely manner. This affected four (#2, #33, #36, and #54) of four residents reviewed for late medications. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had call light within reach while up in wheelchair. This affected one resident (#1) of nine residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely orders were in implemented to address the care and needs of a stage III pressure ulcer (Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed) affecting Resident #5, failed to ensure accurate and ongoing skin monitoring for Resident #39, and failed to ensure wound care recommendations were implemented for Residents #5 and #39. This affected two (#5 and #39) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate care and treatment of a resident's urinary catheter. This affected one (#13) resident of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility census was 52.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of self-reported incidents, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of resident funds. This affected one (#40) of one resident reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of self-reported incidents, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate misappropriation of resident funds. This affected one (#40) of one resident reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident representative and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for two (#21 and #47) of three residents reviewed for falls. In addition, the facility failed to ensure one (#28) of three residents reviewed for transfers were assisted by two staff for transfer with a mechanical hoyer lift. The facility census was 55.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to determine potential hazards and resident-specific interventions to reduce and/or eliminate falls with injury. Additionally, the facility failed to update a resident's care plan with person centered fall interventions to potentially prevent future falls. This resulted in Actual Harm for one resident when Resident #34 experienced a fall on 07/12/23 which was not investigated to implement effective interventions to potentially prevent future falls. As a result of the fall, Resident #34 sustained a fracture of the nasal bones and a spleen laceration Grade 3 from this fall. Additionally, the facility failed to complete a fall investigation for Residents #43 and #42 to potentially prevent future falls. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner and failed to serve meals in a sanitary manner to potentially prevent foodborne illnesses. This had the potential to affect all 50 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This affected eight (#7, #17, #18, #22, #30, #36, #38, and #41) of 14 residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure refrigerated medications were stored at an appropriate temperature. This affected one (Resident #37) and had the potential to affect 12 residents with refrigerated medications. The facility identified 12 (Residents #1, #2, #5, #11, #14, #15, #22, #29, #30, #35, #37 and #41) who had refrigerated medications. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of the menu spreadsheet, the facility failed to provide a pureed meal as approved by the dietitian for four (Residents #11, #21, #28, and #42) of four reviewed for pureed diets. The facility was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure gloves were worn when obtaining a blood glucose level and injecting insulin to one resident (#35) of two observed for receiving insulin and having blood glucose level monitored. The facility further failed to ensure the glucometer was disinfected after use. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately completed hand hygiene following the completion of incontinence care. This affected one resident (#28) of six reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered the COVID-19 vaccine or booster vaccine. This affected four (Residents #22, #33, #41, and #47) of five residents reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to issue notifications to residents who receive Medicaid benefits when their funds accounts were 200 dollars ($) less than the resource limit. This affected three (#14, #16, and #33) of five residents reviewed for resident trust accounts. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident advance directives for code status were accurate. This affected one (#33) of 12 residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive person centered care plan adequately addressed resident activity preferences/interests and activities of daily living. This affected two residents (#31 and #42) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. The faciity census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were bathed/showered as scheduled and requested. This affected one (Resident #7) of three residents reviewed for bathing. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide resident-centered activities for two (Residents #31 and #34) of three residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the medical record, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received medications as ordered. This affected one (Resident #49) of six residents reviewed for medication administration. Further, the facility failed to separate and dispose of medications for discharged residents and expired residents. This affected three (Residents #306, #307, and #308) of three discharged residents and one (Resident #14) of one resident reviewed for expired medications. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to timely respond to pharmacist recommendations. This affected two (Residents #41 and #43) of five residents reviewed for pharmacy recommendations. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of medication pass, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. This affected one resident (#35) of one observed to receive insulin. The facility identified four residents who receive insulin in the 100 hall. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered the pneumococcal vaccine. This affected three (Residents #22, #41, and #47) of five residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccination. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) staffing data report, review of staffing schedule, review of an employee time card, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staffing information submitted for the PBJ report was accurate. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were clean and sanitary. This affected two (#4 and #34) of 56 resident rooms reviewed for the environment. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI), medical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report allegations of misappropriation to the State Survey Agency as required. This affected two residents (#3 and #8) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to provide proper wound care to residents as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#19) of two residents reviewed for wound care. The facility identified five residents with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were available as ordered by the physician. This affected two (#3 and #8) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 56. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 10/09/19. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive disorder, asthma, fibromyalgia, pain in right shoulder, pain in left shoulder, and low back pain. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/15/21, revealed the resident had intact cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's policy and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician acted timely to address pharmacy recommendations. This affected three (Resident #2, #3 and #13) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 56.
10 fire safety citations on file: 6 on June 26, 2025, 2 on October 11, 2023, 2 on May 4, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 11, 2023 | Fine | $40,433 |
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) | 3.82 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.53 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.81 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.35 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.8% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 73.3% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.05 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 3.94 on weekdays and 3.53 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 16.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.76 in April to June 2025 to 3.82 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 | 3.82 | 0.65 | 3.94 | 3.53 | 16.0% | 2 of 90 | 54 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.46 | 0.67 | 3.62 | 3.04 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.16 | 0.67 | 3.31 | 2.78 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.76 | 0.77 | 3.95 | 3.30 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 57 |
| 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 | 5.4 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 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 | 1.9 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.9 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for St. Clare Commons's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.7% 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. 39 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. 49 eligible stays.
7.8% 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.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 15 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. 23 residents counted.
3.1% 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. 23 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 5 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: ST. CLARE COMMONS. CMS links this home to Commonspirit Health, a group of 18 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi Living Communities | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/01/2014 |
| Commonspirit Health | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/01/2014 |
| Cecil, Caitlin | Corporate director | Individual | 06/18/2012 | |
| Finn, Christina | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2017 | |
| Grubbs, Stacey | Corporate director | Individual | 03/26/2012 | |
| Hazard, Ted | Corporate director | Individual | 11/08/2017 | |
| Mbanu, Terika | Corporate director | Individual | 01/05/2024 | |
| Melfi, Mitch | Corporate director | Individual | 05/23/2016 | |
| Munroe, Kyle | Corporate director | Individual | 09/08/2015 | |
| Murriel, Shelly | Corporate director | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Nagel, Jennifer | Corporate director | Individual | 11/12/2015 | |
| Snodgrass, Barbara | Corporate director | Individual | 08/15/2016 | |
| Wine, Matthew | Corporate director | Individual | 10/01/2018 | |
| Iffland, Alisa | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/06/2017 | |
| Lipsey, Prentice | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2021 | |
| Rehmer, Heather | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/25/2024 | |
| Chi Living Communities | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2008 | |
| Commonspirit Health | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2014 | |
| Concept Rehab, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/05/2015 | |
| Forvis Mazars LLP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/16/2019 | |
| Icp Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2024 | |
| Ohio Newspapers, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2011 | |
| Ulrichpinciotti Design Group, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2011 | |
| Cecil, Caitlin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/18/2012 | |
| Cecil, Michelle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/06/2024 | |
| Finn, Christina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2017 | |
| Gray, Christopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/30/2022 | |
| Grime, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/02/2020 | |
| Grubbs, Stacey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/26/2012 | |
| Hazard, Ted | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/08/2017 | |
| Howard, Casey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Iffland, Alisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/06/2017 | |
| Longhin-Howard, Joan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/16/2007 | |
| Marsh, Sarah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2022 | |
| McFarland, Dianne | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/18/2023 | |
| Moscioni, Maria | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/30/2024 | |
| Munroe, Kyle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/08/2015 | |
| Murriel, Shelly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Nagel, Jennifer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/12/2015 | |
| Peternel, Victoria | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/10/2024 | |
| Polisetty, Sudheer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Rehmer, Heather | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2024 | |
| Rizzo, Karin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/12/2024 | |
| Tafelski, Ashley | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/08/2023 | |
| Wine, Matthew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2018 | |
| Chi Living Communities | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2008 | |
| Commonspirit Health | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2014 | |
| Concept Rehab, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/19/2025 | |
| Forvis Mazars LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/19/2025 | |
| Icp Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/19/2025 | |
| Ohio Newspapers, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/19/2025 | |
| Sylvania Franciscan Health | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2008 | |
| Cecil, Caitlin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/18/2012 | |
| Finn, Christina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2017 | |
| Grubbs, Stacey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/26/2012 | |
| Hazard, Ted | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/08/2017 | |
| Howard, Casey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Iffland, Alisa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/06/2017 | |
| Longhin-Howard, Joan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/16/2007 | |
| Lucas, Gina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/28/2024 | |
| Marsh, Sarah | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/19/2025 | |
| McFarland, Dianne | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/18/2023 | |
| Munroe, Kyle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/08/2015 | |
| Murriel, Shelly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Nagel, Jennifer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/12/2015 | |
| Norment, Rachel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/18/2019 | |
| Polisetty, Sudheer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Rehmer, Heather | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/05/2024 | |
| Snodgrass, Barbara | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/15/2016 | |
| Wine, Matthew | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2018 |
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.