44565 Sunset Road, Caldwell, OH 43724 · Noble County · (740) 732-2364
95 certified beds, about 89 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365612 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 28, 2025, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 47 health citations since September 2022, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,801 in the last three years; the largest was $16,801, and the latest is dated April 26, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.48 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.83 of those hours.
40.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Altercare, an affiliated group of 22 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 47 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the building was maintained in a sanitary and homelike environment. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 93.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, policy review, and facility investigation report review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse. This affected two (#12 and #22) of six residents reviewed. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, policy review, and facility investigation report review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated. This affected one (#22) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 89.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's infection control tracking logs, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all infections that occurred in the facility was included on their monthly infection control tracking log, trends/ patterns were identified by the infection preventionist when they occurred, and a resident with wounds was placed on enhanced barrier precautions as required. This affected one resident (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, one resident (#22) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, and had the potential to affect all other residents residing in the facility. The facility's census was 84.
Inspectors wrote2 a.) On 05/18/25 11:58 A.M., an observation during the lunch meal service for the residents eating in their rooms on Unit 2 noted Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #187 to be feeding Resident #36, while the resident was in her bed. CNA #187 was standing at the side of the bed while feeding the resident. She was not noted to be sitting in a chair at the bedside to provide the resident with a dignified dining experience. 2 b.) On 05/18/25 at 12:00 P.M., an observation during the lunch meal service for the residents eating in their rooms on Unit 2 noted CNA #500 to be feeding Resident #57, while the resident was in her bed. CNA #500 was standing at the side of the bed while feeding the resident. She was not noted to be sitting in a chair at the bedside to provide the resident with a dignified dining experience. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of self-reported incident (SRI), review of the facility's investigation, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to prevent resident neglect. This affected one resident (#73) of one resident reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed accurately on admission. This affected one resident (#78) of one resident reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dental services were provided to Resident #32 and pressure ulcer prevention interventions were implemented for Resident #64 as per the plan of care. This affected three residents (Resident #32 and #64) of 27 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were completed timely following a resident's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and care plans were revised in the areas of dental status and to reflect a resident's reported non-compliance with non-pressure skin impairment interventions. This affected one resident (#32) of two residents reviewed for care conferences and two residents (#7 and #16) of 22 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for a resident and failed to provide timely nail care for a resident. This affected two residents (#2 and #14) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and provide treatment to skin integrity concerns. This affected one resident (#73) of two reviewed for non-pressure skin impairments. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure skin prevention interventions were implemented for residents at risk for or having had pressure ulcers and also failed to ensure a resident's pressure ulcer was comprehensively assessed weekly to monitor for wound healing. This affected three residents (#16, #64, and #73) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide timely contracture management. This affected one resident (#56) of one resident reviewed for contractures. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was consistent communication between the facility and the dialysis center on the days a resident went out for hemodialysis treatments. This affected one resident (#62) of one resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide services to prevent Resident #78 from experiencing triggers related to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This affected one resident (#78) of one resident reviewed for PTSD. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, review of a drug reference resource, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received a short acting anti-anxiety medication in accordance with their physician's orders to adequately manage anxiety. This affected one resident (#48) of five residents reviewed for behavioral-emotional care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of pharmacy recommendation, and interviews the facility failed to implement pharmacy recommendation and physician orders. This affected one resident (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure insulin pens were dated when opened. This affected three residents (#26, #49 and #192) of three residents reviewed for insulin use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's contracted dental company's visit list, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who consented to receive dental services while in the facility, received those services to replace a broken lower denture plate. This affected one resident (#32) of three residents reviewed for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control log, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were not treated with antibiotics for urinary tract infections, unless the residents met criteria for treatment. This affected two residents (#63 and #91), who were noted on the monthly infection control logs for the past three months to receive antibiotics without meeting criteria for treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's related investigation, observation, staff interview, employee file review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from staff to resident sexual abuse and another resident was free from neglect when the resident was left on a bed pan for fourteen (14) hours. This affected two residents (#44 and #46) of four residents reviewed for abuse/ neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's related investigation, observation, staff interview, review of employee files, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of staff to resident sexual abuse and resident neglect were reported to the State survey agency as required. This affected two residents (#44 and #46) of four residents reviewed for abuse/ neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's related investigation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of sexually inappropriate behavior between a resident and a staff member was recognized as possible sexual abuse and investigated as required. This affected one resident (#44) of four residents reviewed for abuse/ neglect.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY Based on record review, review of the facility's related investigation, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who entered the facility without any skin breakdown received the care and services to prevent an avoidable pressure ulcer from developing. This affected one resident (#46) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the shower/bathing schedule, review of shower sheets, review of concern log, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received showers per preference. This affected three residents (#17, #52, and #70) of four residents reviewed for showers.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, review of the facility incident and accident log and corresponding investigation, review of the Facility Assessment, review of the Elopement Risk Assessment Policy and Procedure and staff, family and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to Resident #74, who was actively exit seeking, cognitively impaired (with a Brief Interview Memory Score of six indicating severe cognitive impairment), identified as an elopement risk and resided on the secured unit, to prevent the resident from exiting the secured unit and the facility unsupervised. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious, life-threatening harm, injuries and/or death on 03/14/24 at approximately 5:50 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, electronic mail (email) communication review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to reasonably accommodate the request of Resident #72's family/responsible party to install an electronic monitoring device (camera of choice) in Resident #72's room. This affected one resident (#72) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #16's medical record was maintained in a secure and confidential manner. This affected one (Resident #16) of one resident reviewed for confidentiality of medical records. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility investigation review, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed regarding a resident elopement. This affected one resident (Resident #74) of two residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of shower schedules, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents, who were dependent on staff for personal care, were provided the assistance they required for showers and nail care. This affected three (Resident #26, #41, and #236) of five residents received for activities of daily living (ADL).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of audiology visit reports, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was seen by an audiologist as requested by the resident and/ or her resident representative. This affected one (Resident #26) of two residents reviewed for ancillary services. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received routine, preventative foot care. This affected one resident (#2) of two residents reviewed for ancillary services. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, review of the facility policy, and review of manufacture instructions, the facility failed to ensure Resident #8's continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mask was properly cleaned. This affected one (Resident #8) out of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, pharmacy review, and interview the facility failed to ensure physician orders were implemented after a pharmacy recommendation and failed to provide rationale for extending as needed psychotropic medication beyond 14 days. This affected one resident (Resident #62) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of a self- reported incident (SRI), facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were not misappropriated by facility staff. This affected one resident (#13) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to utilize the starter box from the pharmacy to administer the correct medication to a resident when their medication was not able to be located. This affected one resident (#13) of one resident reviewed for medications. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to provide oxygen as ordered by the physician. This affected two Residents (#2 and #26) of three reviewed for oxygen. The facility census was 86.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure cold foods were held and served at appropriate temperatures. This had the potential to affect all 78 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, open and closed record review, interview, resident handbook review and facility policy and procedure review the facility failed to ensure residents were provided the opportunity to exercise their right to smoke according to the facility smoking policy and failed to ensure new admissions were notified of the facility new smoking procedures upon admission. This affected two residents (#12 and #284) of two residents reviewed for smoking. The facility identified seven residents who smoke. The census was 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to revise a comprehensive person-centered care plan following a fall for Resident #38. This affected one resident (#38) of three residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #59, who required staff assistance with activity of daily living (ADL) care received timely and adequate assistance with nail care to maintain good hygiene/grooming. This affected one resident (#59) of three residents reviewed for ADL care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a pressure ulcer treatment was provided as ordered for Resident #50. This affected one resident (#50) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #51, who had a limitation in range of motion/contracture to the left hand was provided a hand roll as ordered by the physician. This affected one resident (#51) of one resident reviewed for range of motion.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, facility investigation review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to provide adequate and appropriate supervision/interventions to prevent resident elopements and failed to ensure comprehensive elopement investigations were completed to potentially prevent reoccurrence. This affected two residents (#82 and #285) of two residents reviewed for elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to provide appropriate care in a manner to decrease the risk of Resident #78 developing a urinary tract infection. This affected one resident (#78) of one resident observed for incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #9 did not receive an antibiotic without an adequate indication for use and meeting criteria for the treatment of a urinary tract infection (UTI). This affected one resident (#9) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized immunization program to ensure influenza and/or pneumococcal immunizations were provided to Resident #68 and Resident #231 when indicated. This affected two residents (#68 and #231) of six residents reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations.
5 fire safety citations on file: 2 on May 28, 2025, 2 on April 26, 2024, 1 on September 27, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 26, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
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) | 3.48 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.10 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.15 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.51 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 40.5% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 22.2% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.30 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 3.64 on weekdays and 3.10 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 9.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.62 in April to June 2025 to 3.48 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 | 3.48 | 0.83 | 3.64 | 3.10 | 9.4% | 0 of 90 | 89 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.37 | 0.77 | 3.51 | 3.03 | 11.0% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.53 | 0.75 | 3.66 | 3.21 | 4.9% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.62 | 0.80 | 3.79 | 3.20 | 9.6% | 0 of 91 | 85 |
| 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 | 1.6 | 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 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.1 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.7 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Summit Acres Nursing Home's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.0% 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. 90 eligible stays.
10.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 102 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 62 eligible stays.
65.7% 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. 67 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 89 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. 89 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 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: SUMMIT ACRES INC. CMS links this home to Altercare, a group of 22 nursing homes averaging 3.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsg Nursing Centers, Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/28/2012 |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Andrew M Schroer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Gerald F Schroer Jr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Fbo Matthew Schroer | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Gerald F Schroer Dynasty Tr Ua 12312009 Margaret S Goodman | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| Susanne Schroer Dynasty Trust U/a | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/15/2015 | |
| The Schroer Group, Inc. | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/28/2012 | |
| Cleary, Sean | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/27/2016 | |
| Mock, Douglas | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/20/2021 | |
| Cleary, Sean | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/27/2016 | |
| Film, George | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Goodman, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/28/2012 | |
| Johnson, Kathy | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/28/2012 | |
| McNutt, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/30/2015 | |
| Mock, Douglas | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/20/2021 | |
| Nutter, Orian | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/2021 | |
| Altercare of Ohio, Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/28/2012 |
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.