575 Lovers Lane, Steubenville, OH 43953 · Jefferson County · (740) 266-6118
54 certified beds, about 51 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366241 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 13, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 59 health citations since November 2019, 2 were 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 3.58 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.63 of those hours.
51.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
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 59 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were accurate and consistently recorded in the record. This affected one Resident (Resident #30) of one reviewed for advanced directives. The census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed accurately upon admission to the facility. This affected one (Resident #8) of one residents reviewed for PASRR assessments. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident blood pressures were monitored prior to administration of hypotensive medications and according to physician's medication order parameters. This affected one (Resident #99) of five residents reviewed for medication use. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents medical record were complete and accurate related to documentation of care provided. This affected two residents (Resident #8 and #28) out of two residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an assessment for proper indication of antibiotic use was completed prior to utilizing antibiotic medications. The affected three (Residents #7, #8 and #10) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered influenza and pneumococcal vaccines after admission to the facility. This affected one (Resident #8) of five residents reviewed for vaccines. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered COVID-19 vaccines after admission to the facility. This affected one (Resident #8) of five residents reviewed for vaccines. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and review of the daily posting it was determined the facility failed to ensure accomodation of resident needs to ensure resident's call lights were answered timely. This affected four residents (#3, #9, #20, and #40) of 41 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of shower schedule, and interviews the facility failed to ensure resident dependent on staff for bathing had bath preference honored. This affected three residents (#9, #22, and #43) of three records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing assistants received required training prior to providing direct care to residents. This had the potential to affect all 46 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and investigation, the facility failed to ensure administrative staff maintained records in a secure and accessible area and failed to ensure incidents of elopement were investigated and evaluated to ensure safety of wandering residents. This affected all 46 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide evidence of infection control surveillance and failed to implement proper hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during care of a feeding tube. This affected Residents #3 and #22 and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of infection surveillance records and interview, the facility failed to ensure a minimum of one individual was qualified to perform the job of an infection preventionist. This had the potential to affect all 46 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services, according to program instruction, to maintain residents' range of motion for four (Residents #2, #9, #10 and #42) of four residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility identified 11 residents on restorative programs for range of motion. The facility census was 46. 1. Review of Resident #10's medical records revealed diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, malignant neoplasm of the glottis (center of the larynx (voice box) ), chronic peripheral venous insufficiency, heart disease, and macular degeneration. Review of a care plan initiated 02/05/24 revealed Resident #10 was on a restorative nursing program (RNP). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of pharmacy recommendations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were acted upon timely. This affected four (Residents #10, #13, #34, and #40) of five residents reviewed for medication use. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and review of Medscape online information regarding humalog insulin storage the facility failed to ensure the proper labeling and storage of medications. This affected five residents (Resident #1, #21, #33, #45 and #48) of 46 residents with medications secured in the two facility identified medication carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of medical records. This affected three known residents (Resident #13, 18, and #47) but had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to implement the use of a stop sign across a resident's room to deter wandering residents from entering her room. This affected one (Resident #29) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #18's family/responsible party and physician were notified when Resident #18 was located outside the facility unaccompanied by staff. This affected one (Resident #18) of three residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, the facility post-fall monitoring report and interview, the facility failed to ensure neurological checks (series of assessments which reflect a resident's brain and neurological function) where completed, after unwitnessed falls, for one (Resident #13) of three residents reviewed for falls. The census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of incident reports, policy review, review of manufacturer information for wanderguards, and interview, the facility failed to ensure elopement interventions were implemented, wanderguards and exit doors were monitored to ensure appropriate functionality, and failed to ensure a comprehensive fall prevention program was implemented. This affected two (Residents #13 and #18) of six residents reviewed for falls and elopement. The census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of drug-related information on www.medscape.com, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had adequate indications for use of a psychotropic medication. This affected one (Resident #13) of five residents whose medications were reviewed. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility investigation review, personnel file review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from misappropriation when a staff member accepted money from a resident. This affected one (Resident #44) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility investigation review, personnel file review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of misappropriation when a staff member accepted money from a resident. This affected one (Resident #44) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility investigation review, personnel file review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a complete and thorough investigation of misappropriation when a staff member accepted money from a resident. This affected one (Resident #44) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 42.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a wound treatment was provided as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #42) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #42) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 42 residents.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, review of information from diabetes.org and interview the facility failed to adequately monitor Resident #40 related to the administration of diabetic medication. Actual harm occurred on 07/22/23 when Resident #40 was found by staff with a change in mental status/condition after oral hypoglycemic medications had been adjusted and no routine blood glucose monitoring was ordered/completed. Resident #40 was emergently transferred to the hospital and subsequently admitted with a diagnosis of hypoglycemia (low blood glucose/sugar level). This affected one resident (#40) of three residents reviewed for blood glucose monitoring. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representatives were provided admission packet and admission information timely to allow the resident and/or resident representative to participate in the care process. This affected one (Resident #40) of three residents reviewed for admission information. The facility census was 46.
Inspectors wroteBased on staffing schedule review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Registered Nursing services were provided at least eight hours per day. This had the potential to affect all residents within the facility. The census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the ice machine was clean and failed to ensure refrigerators in resident's rooms were monitored for temperature control. The ice machine being unclean had the ability to affect all 35 residents receiving food by mouth in the facility. The temperature monitoring of personal refrigerators had the ability to affect two Residents (#26 and #27) who had personal refrigerators in their rooms. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to notify the resident, resident's representative, and ombudsman in writing of the reason for transfer. This affected four Residents (#16, #18, #19, and #33) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to notify the resident or resident's representative in writing of the facility bed hold policy. This affected four Residents (#16, #18, #19, and #33) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an advanced directive was formulated upon admission. This affected two Residents (#86 and #186) of 16 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a resident's physician was notified regarding antibiotic medication delay. This affected one Resident (#19) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure transfer paperwork was completed and sent with the resident to the emergency department. This affected one Resident (#16) of four residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was completed upon admission. This affected one Resident (#186) of one Resident reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for respiratory infections. This affected two Residents (#16 and #19) of 16 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 36. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of anemia, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, essential hypertension, and encephalopathy. Review of Resident #16's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #16's progress notes revealed she was transferred to the local hospital on [DATE] due to a complaint of not feeling well, a temperature of 101.7 degrees Fahrenheit and moaning upon transfer to bed. Resident #16 returned to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure pressure relief interventions were in place as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #32) of one residents reviewed for pressure ulcer wounds. The facility identified one resident with pressure ulcer wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with contractures received appropriate services to maintain mobility and prevent further decrease in range of motion and failed to ensure restorative services were provided as ordered. This affected two (Resident #18 and Resident #32) of two residents reviewed for mobility. The facility identified three residents with contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure dietitian recommendations were completed for a resident with weight loss. This affected one Resident (#16) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's oxygen flow rate was set as ordered. This affected one (Resident #17) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility identified ten residents receiving respiratory treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessment and communication with resident dialysis center was completed. This affected one (Resident #35) of one residents reviewed for dialysis services. The facility identified three resident currently receiving dialysis services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a bed rail assessment was completed and failed to obtain informed consent from the resident/resident representative. This affected one (Resident #28) of one resident reviewed for accident hazards. The facility identified nine residents who used bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacy recommendation for laboratory monitoring was addressed by the physician. This affected one (Resident #7) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident specific behavioral monitoring with the use of psychotropic drugs. This affected three (Resident #7, #26, and #25) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the correct hospice provider was documented in the Residents record. This affected one Resident (#19) of one residents reviewed for hospice and end of life care. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure documented evidence of providing pneumococcal immunization education, the administration, or the refusal of the vaccine. This affected one (Resident #29) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to provide one resident (Resident #11) adequate assistance during a wheelchair transport to prevent a fall with major injury. Actual Harm occurred on 08/06/19 when Resident #11, who required extensive assistance from staff for wheelchair transportation, sustained a fall from her wheelchair when her nightgown got caught in the wheel of the wheelchair causing the resident to fall from the wheelchair landing on her face and sustaining an orbital (facial) fracture. This affected one resident (Resident #11) of two reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure medications observed in the 100/200 hall medication cart, the 400/500 hall medication cart, the medication room and the treatment cart were properly labeled to ensure they were not used after expiration and/or properly stored to prevent unauthorized access. This affected five residents (#10, #22, #28, #33 and #42) from the 100/200 hall medication cart, four residents (#19, #24, #45 and #250) from the 400/500 hall medication cart and had the potential to affect all 48 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of medical records for Resident #33, #36, #44 and #47. This affected four residents (#33, #36, #44 and #47) of 14 residents whose medical records were reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #41's written advance directive consent form was thoroughly completed. This affected one resident (#41) of 17 residents whose records were reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Self Reported Incident (SRI) documentation and staff interview the facility failed to effectively implement their abuse policy and procedure to ensure all allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated. This affected three residents (#2, #32 and #37) of three residents reviewed in three facility SRI reports.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of Self Reported Incident (SRI) documentation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated. This affected three residents (#2, #32 and #37) of three residents reviewed in three facility SRI reports.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized and comprehensive activities program for Resident #47 in accordance with the resident's preferences. This affected one resident (#47) of ten residents interviewed regarding activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely implementation of interventions after identifying significant weight loss, failed to notify the physician, and failed to timely re-weigh Resident #37 following a hospitalization. This affected one resident (#37) of three residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #47's dialysis access site was monitored in accordance with physician orders, failed to monitor fluid intake due to fluid restrictions and failed to ensure a fluid restriction worksheet was consistent with the ordered fluid restriction and failed to schedule and administer medication in accordance with guidelines provided by dialysis. This affected one resident (#47) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility identified three residents on dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure laboratory (PT/INR) testing was completed for Resident #44 who received the anticoagulant medication, Coumadin to ensure the resident received the appropriate dosage of the medication. This affected one resident (#44) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to obtain a stop date or obtain an appropriate rationale for the continued use of the as needed (prn) antianxiety medication, Lorazepam for Resident #250. This affected one resident (#250) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
27 fire safety citations on file: 9 on February 13, 2025, 3 on September 12, 2022, 15 on November 27, 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) | 3.58 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.21 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.42 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.54 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.7% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.4% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.73 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 3.74 on weekdays and 3.21 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 4.05 in April to June 2025 to 3.58 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 | 3.58 | 0.63 | 3.74 | 3.21 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 51 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.56 | 0.48 | 3.74 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 49 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.64 | 0.56 | 3.91 | 2.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 48 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.05 | 0.48 | 4.37 | 3.26 | 1.8% | 0 of 91 | 46 |
| 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 | 18.1 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.8 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.4 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.7 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.0 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Steubenville Country Club Manor's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.5% 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. 46 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. 61 eligible stays.
7.9% 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. 35 eligible stays.
25.0% 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. 24 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. 31 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. 31 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. 6 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: STEUBENVILLE COUNTRY CLUB MANOR.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bolger, James | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 01/01/2000 |
| Bolger, Rena | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 26% | 01/01/2000 |
| Bolger, Stephen | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 05/29/2001 |
| Boyle, Denise | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 01/01/2000 |
| Bolger, James | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2000 | |
| Boyle, Denise | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2000 | |
| Bolger, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2000 | |
| Bolger, Rena | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2000 | |
| Bolger, Stephen | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/29/2001 | |
| Boyle, Denise | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2000 |
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.