694 Isaac Prugh Way, Kettering, OH 45429 · Montgomery County · (937) 297-4300
90 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365773 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 16, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 57 health citations since December 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $41,974 in the last three years; the largest was $41,974, and the latest is dated June 16, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.47 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.81 of those hours.
60.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Ciena Healthcare/Laurel Health Care, an affiliated group of 81 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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interviews, review of Google Maps, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician and the Legal Guardian a resident was exiting the facility without supervision and left the facility property unsupervised. This affected one (#51) out of three residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure and admission [NAME] Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assesment was completed timely for one (#37) of four residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan included a resident's hearing status and interventions. This affected one (#85) of four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, review of Google Maps, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with directions from legal guardians not to leave the facility and residents with cognitive impairment did not leave the facility property unsupervised. This affected two (#51 and #84) of three residents reviewed for elopements. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for non-pharmaceutical pain interventions for one (#86) of four residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to meet the needs of residents with regard to the timeliness of reporting stat and critical laboratory (lab) results and have a lab policy. This affected two Residents (#85 and #87) of three residents reviewed for labs.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, review of Google Maps, and policy review, the facility failed to document in the medical record when a resident was identified to have left the facility property unsupervised. This affected one (#51) of three residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to complete comprehensive wound evaluations that included wound measurements or characteristics. This affected two (#09 and #85) residents out of the three residents reviewed for wound cares/services. The facility census was 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and physician interviews and review of information from the American Diabetes Association, the facility failed to assess a resident and notify the physician of a residents elevated blood glucose levels. This affected one (#11) or three residents reviewed for blood sugar readings. The facility census was 75.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff interviews, facility policy reviews, and review of the guidelines from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), the facility failed to thoroughly assess a resident's skin and failed to timely identify a resident's pressure ulcers until they reached an advanced stage. This resulted in Actual Harm to Resident #35, who developed pressure ulcers while in the facility, which were not identified until they had reached an advanced stage. Resident #35 was noted to have a reddened area on 01/14/25, according to shower sheets, but the area was not assessed, and interventions were not implemented until 01/16/25 when the pressure ulcer was identified as an unstageable pressure ulcer (sloughing and/or eschar) to the coccyx. This affected one (#35) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician for a change in condition. This affected four (#2, #3, #19, and #53) out of four of residents reviewed for a change in condition. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary or recapitulation of a resident's stay, failed to complete a bed hold notice when resident's were transferred to the hospital and failed to notify the Ombudsman of resident's discharges. This affected four (#15, #27, #75, and #134) out of four residents reviewed for discharges. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment when meal trays were delivered to the residents with plasticware in place of silverware. This affected three Residents (#05, #67, and #129) out of three residents reviewed for home-like environment. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurate coded. This affected one (#53) out of three residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive skin assessment was completed upon admission. This affected one (#126) out of six residents reviewed for skin breakdown. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place as care planned. This affected one (#31) out of one resident reviewed for falls. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wrote3. Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 02/28/25. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis (MS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and type II diabetes mellitus (DM II). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 had moderate cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12. This resident was assessed to require supervision with eating, dependent with toileting, bathing, dressing, and transfers. Review of the medical record for weights for Resident #2 revealed the following: - 02/28/25: 221.1 pounds - 03/01/25: 289.4 pounds - 03/02/25: 289.4 pounds - 03/11/25: 388.2 pounds - 03/18/25: 388.1 pounds - 03/25/25: 387.2 pounds - 03/26/25: 244 pounds - 04/01/25: 285.6 pounds - 04/04/25: 285.5 pounds - 05/05/25: 285.5 pounds - 06/11/25: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to timely implement appropriate interventions to manage a resident's pain. This affected one (#2) of five reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to assess a dialysis access site as per facility policy. This affected one (#132) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide behavioral health services for Resident #14 who had diagnoses of mental disorders. This affected one (#14) of six residents reviewed for behavior management. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered which resulted in a significant medication error. This affected one (#135) out of six residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, interviews, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to follow up with dental services regarding a resident's missing dentures. This affected one (#2) of one resident reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection control measures during wound care and peri care. This affected three (#3, #35, and #67) of five reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of list of medications available in emergency box, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer a medication as per resident request and physician order. The affected one (#65) out of the three residents reviewed for medications administered as ordered. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with staff assistance at the bedside after toileting which resulted in a fall with injury. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #34 who required substantial/maximal assistance to transfer for toileting, did not have on gripper socks on her feet and was assisted off the bedside commode, became unsteady on her feet, was sat on the side of her bed, and the certified nursing assistant (CNA) left the resident alone and stepped out of the room to get additional staff assistance. The resident fell onto the floor face first when she was left on the side of the bed by herself resulting in a laceration that required the resident to get three stitches to her face. The affected one (Resident #34) of three residents reviewed for falls. The census was 83.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to notify resident representative of a resident's change in condition. This affected one (#33) resident out of three reviewed for changes in condition. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe and orderly discharges. This affected two (#67 and #68) out of four residents reviewed for discharges. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff completed a recapitulation of a resident's stay upon discharge. This affected two (#66 and #70) out of four residents reviewed for discharges. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to properly assess a resident's skin breakdown at the time the area was first observed. Additionally, the facility failed to complete weekly monitoring of the wound and failed to complete treatments as ordered. This affected one (#33) out of three residents reviewed for wound care and services. The facility census was 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to follow physician orders to obtain daily weights. This affected one (Resident #81) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 80 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to properly monitor resident weights and failed to implement nutritional recommendations to prevent weight loss. This affected one (Resident #83) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 80 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent (%.) The facility medication error rate was 7.14% based on 28 medication opporunities and two medication errors. This affected two (Residents #22 and #68) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 80 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to follow proper infection control practices when providing direct care for residents with physician's orders for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). This affected two (Residents #9 and #55) residents of three reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 80 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's medication administration records (MAR) and treatment administration records (TAR) were available during disruption of internet services. This affected five (Residents #12, #13, #20, #26, and #61) of five residents reviewed for medical records and the potential to affect all 87 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors when the residents did not receive their medications as physician ordered when the electronic record was not available. This affected five (Residents #12, #13, #17, #26, and #61) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for residents with chronic wounds and/or indwelling medical devices. This affected 11 (Residents #13, #18, #20, #23, #24, #25, #30, #36, #79, #82, and #88) of 23 residents reviewed for EBP. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to timely identify and treat a resident's skin tear. This affected one (Resident #28) of three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, review of the facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received incontinence care in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #61) of six residents reviewed for toileting assistance. The facility census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate assistance with bathing. This affected three (#13, #16, and #23) of four residents reviewed for bathing assistance. The census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain weekly weights as ordered. This affected one (#12) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure eye protection was worn into COVID-19 positive resident's rooms. This potentially could affect eight (#31, #12, #43, #34, #13, #1, #14, #30) of twelve residents who resided on the 200 hall and did not have COVID-19. The census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure bathing/showers was provided for residents who were dependent on staff for care. This affected two (#14 and #16) of three residents reviewed for bathing. The census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure referrals for outside services were made when requested by the family. This affected one (#16) of three residents reviewed for outside services. The census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of baseline care plans and failed to ensure residents and their representatives received a copy of the baseline care plan. This affected four (Residents #21, #50, #44, and #41) of nine residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure routine care conferences were held. This affected three (Residents #18, #41, and #42) of four residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a manner to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness. This had the potential to affect 43 of 44 residents in the facility. The facility identified one resident (Resident #44) who did not receive food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded to reflect the resident's current health care status. This affected one (Resident #30) of five residents reviewed for accurate MDS assessments. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of care plans. This affected two (Residents #30 and #44) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a discharge summary was completed for a planned discharge. This affected one (Resident #59) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to respond timely to recommendations from outside providers. This affected one (Resident #30) of 16 residents reviewed for ancillary services. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain complete, accurate documentation in the medical record. This affected one (Resident #57) of sixteen records reviewed for accuracy. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director attended quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) meetings. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed and submitted to Centers of Medicare and Medicaid according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. This affected two (Residents #39 and #34) of five residents reviewed for MDS submissions. The facility census was 44.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, review of the facility's policies, and Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) toolkit assessment, the facility failed to properly cleanse the blood glucose monitoring machine. This affected Resident #7 during an observation of medication administration. This had the potential to affect Resident #85 and Resident #177 who were identified by the facility as having shared the blood glucose monitoring machine. In addition, the facility failed to ensure infection control monitoring was adequate to control the spread of communicable diseases. Also, the facility failed to ensure control measures and monitoring was in place for all potential hazardous conditions were Legionella had the potential to grow as identified by the facility. This had the potential to effect all 35 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the abuse policy was followed after an allegation of abuse was voiced by a resident. This affected one of one (#177) resident who triggered for abuse during the annual survey. The census was 35.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and resident interview, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the State Survey Agency, the Ohio Department of Health. This affected one of one (#177) resident who made an allegation of abuse during the annual survey. The facility census was 35.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and resident interview, review of facility's investigation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated. This affected one of one (#177) resident who made an allegation of abuse during the annual survey. The census was 35.
19 fire safety citations on file: 4 on June 16, 2025, 6 on March 2, 2023, 9 on December 28, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 16, 2025 | Fine | $41,974 |
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) | 3.47 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.81 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.03 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.79 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 60.9% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.27 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 3.03 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.44 in April to June 2025 to 3.47 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 | 3.47 | 0.81 | 3.64 | 3.03 | 1.5% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.47 | 0.73 | 3.62 | 3.09 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.57 | 0.73 | 3.74 | 3.12 | 9.3% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.44 | 0.69 | 3.59 | 3.06 | 0.6% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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 | 9.6 | 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 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.3 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.9 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Laurels of Kettering's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.5% 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. 169 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 158 eligible stays.
8.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 97 eligible stays.
53.6% 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. 56 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. 90 residents counted.
5.0% 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. 90 residents counted.
97.0% 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. 33 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: THE LAURELS OF KETTERING, LLC. CMS links this home to Ciena Healthcare/Laurel Health Care, a group of 81 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khan, Anis | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Laurel Health Care Company | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2021 | |
| Gehret, Lindsey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/19/2022 | |
| Hunter, Rachel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/15/2025 | |
| Khan, Anis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Kettering Senior Leasing, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2021 | |
| Laurel Health Care Company | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2025 | |
| Mohammad a Qazi Living Trust Dated 09/26/97 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2021 | |
| Deutsch, Neal | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Gardina, Anna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Gehret, Lindsey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/19/2022 | |
| Hunter, Rachel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/15/2025 | |
| Khan, Anis | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2021 |
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.