Home / Ohio / Richmond Heights
562 Richmond Road, Richmond Heights, OH 44143 · Cuyahoga County · (216) 291-8585
60 certified beds, about 54 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2009
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366377 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 28, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 31 health citations since January 2020 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.79 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.54 of those hours.
77.3% 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the police report, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to appropriately discharge Resident #55. This affected one (Resident #55) out of three residents discharged from the facility. The facility census was 54 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to document concerns regarding Resident #37's care in the facility. This affected one (Resident #37) out of three residents reviewed with concerns. The facility census was 54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the dumpster area in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wrote10. Interview on 05/21/25 at 2:22 P.M. with Maintenance Director #609 confirmed he was unable to provide a Legionella risk assessment or a water management plan. Maintenance Director #609 confirmed there was a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) toolkit available to them in their maintenance system for use to develop a risk assessment and plan, but he had not done so yet. Maintenance Director #609 indicated he did check water temperatures every Friday on each hall. Interview on 05/212/25 at 3:48 P.M. with the Administrator confirmed she was unable to locate any additional information regarding a Legionella risk assessment or water management plan. Review of facility policy Water Management Program undated revealed it was the policy of the facility to establish water management plans for reducing the risk of legionnaires and other opportunistic pathogens in the water system. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure education on immunization risk and benefits were provided and failed to obtain written consent for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations. This affected five residents (#1, #30, #37, #45, and #46) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure education on immunization risk and benefits were provided and failed to obtain written consent for COVID-19 immunizations. This affected five residents (#1, #30, #37, #45, and #46) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were nutritionally assessed and monitored on a routine basis. This affected two residents (#30, and #46) of five residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure communication and monitoring between the facility and dialysis center was completed and maintained. This affected one resident (#46) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were timely reviewed and addressed by the physician. This affected three residents (#18, #30, and #34) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 48.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, resident interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two ( #32 and #7) of three residents reviewed for admission, transfers, or discharges, were notified of past due payments resulting in a 30 day discharge notice and failed to ensure the reasons for the transfers or discharge was documented in the medical record. The facility census was 49. Findings Include: 1. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including infection and inflammatory reaction with removal of internal fixation device of a left hip replacement, post traumatic stress disorder, high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #100 received assistance as needed and failed to recognize a change in Resident #100's condition. This affected one (#100) of six residents reviewed for the provision of care and services. The facility census was 49. Findings Include: Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including breast cancer to the left breast, dementia without behavioral disturbance, multiple sclerosis, high blood pressure, left mastectomy, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of the quarterly comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 08/06/24 revealed Resident #100 was moderately cognitively impaired, needed set up for eating, and supervision for toileting and bathing. Review of the progress notes revealed on 08/22/24 timed 2:06 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate and accurate medical record documentation for one (#100) of six residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 49. Findings Include: Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including breast cancer to the left breast, dementia without behavioral disturbance, multiple sclerosis, high blood pressure, left mastectomy, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of the quarterly comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 08/06/24 revealed the Resident #100 was moderately cognitively impaired and needed supervision for all care. Review of the progress note dated 08/22/24 timed 2:06 P.M. revealed Resident #100 had an appointment scheduled for 10:00 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #115, who had cognitive and neurological impairments, a diagnosis of dementia, and was at risk for falls, was not left unattended in the facility van with no air conditioning and the door open for an extended period of time. This affected one resident (#115) of three residents reviewed for transportation to outside appointments. The facility census was 67.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interview the facility failed to provide activities as scheduled and to support the residents' mental and psychosocial wellbeing. This affected three (#2, #45, #47) of 13 residents interviewed and had the potential to affect nine (#1, #2, #12, #17, #24, #26, #30, #34, and #36) of 48 residents observed for participation in activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents had a dignified eating experience. This affected three ( #12, #19, #34) of 20 residents observed for meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility reported incident, review of facility policy and interview, the facility did not ensure Resident #52 was free from physical abuse by Resident #46. This affected one resident (#52) out of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 49.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain its garbage disposal area in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide documented evidence an antibiotic stewardship program was in place. This affected six residents (#2, #21, #23, #32, #38, and #141) and had the potential to affect all 34 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment was kept clean, neat, well lit, and homelike. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #15. This affected five residents (#3, #4, #7, #8, and #15) of fifteen residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The facility census was 34.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure staff hands were cleansed between residents when passing out meal trays to residents in their rooms for three residents (#17, #32 and #34), failed to ensure dirty linen was kept off the floor for Resident #38, failed to ensure urinary catheter bag was kept off the floor and catheter care was done properly for Resident #3. This affected five residents (#3, #17, #32, #34 and #38) of 34 residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 34.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have updated/revised care plans for Resident #8 and Resident #31. This affected two residents (#8 and #31) of fifteen residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 34.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #8 received timely nail care and failed to ensure Resident #38 received timely oral care. The facility failed to have accurate documented evidence that Resident's #3, #8, #14 and #31 had showers as ordered and/or per preference. This affected five residents (#3, #8, #14, #31, and #38) of fifteen residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. The facility census was 34.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and observation the facility failed to administer medications with an error rate of 5 percent (%) or less. This affected Resident and #3 and Resident #17, two of five residents observed medication administration. There were three errors out of 30 opportunities resulting in an error rate of 10%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure its garbage disposal area was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 33. Findings Include: Observation of the facilities garbage disposal area with Dietary Manager (DM) #101 on 01/21/20 at 8:53 A.M. revealed there were plastic bags of garbage covered with snow around the outside dumpster. DM #101 verified the above observations at the time of discovery.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure comprehensive resident centered care plans were initiated, developed and implemented to meet the needs of its residents. This affected five (Residents #35, #136, #240, #241, #287) of fourteen sampled residents. The facility census was 33. Findings Include: 1. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bronchitis, type 2 diabetes and kidney failure. Review of the care plan for Resident #35 revealed problem areas of shortness of breath, anticoagulant medication use, discharge planning, vision impairment, falls, pain and skin conditions . None of these areas were noted with resident specific focus areas or goals. Minimum Data Set Nurse #100 verified the lack of individualized focus areas and goals in an interview on 01/22/20 at 7:30 A.M. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide an adequate sized bed for Resident #14. This affected one, Resident #14, of three residents reviewed, Residents #14, #12 and #21 for adequate sized beds. The facility census was 33.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to ensure a thorough skin assessment was done on a newly admitted resident. This affected one resident (Resident #286 ) out one resident reviewed for skin issues not pressure related. The facility census was 33. Findings Include: Resident #286 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His admitting diagnoses included urinary tract infection, cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis, delirium due to physiological condition, type II diabetes, and dementia. Review of the resident's admission assessment revealed the resident did have cognitive impairment. He needed assistance of one for a majority of activities of daily living including toileting. Review of skin assessment from this admission showed no noted skin issues or wounds on admission. Observation of Resident #286 on 01/22/20 at 1:00 P.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor supplemental intake for Resident #12. This affected one, Resident #12, of one residents reviewed for supplemental intake. The facility census was 33. Record review revealed Resident #12 had an admission date of 07/22/15. Diagnosis for Resident #12 included type two diabetes mellitus, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dependence on a wheelchair, and unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances. The minimum data assessment (MDS)completed on 12/06/19 revealed Resident #12 required set up help only for eating. The care plan dated 10/03/19 revealed Resident #12 had been at nutritional risk due to a variable food intake. Resident #12 had a significant negative weight decrease of 10.7 percent in the previous six months. Resident #12 began to refuse meals. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to give prescribed medications per physicians orders for Residents #287. This affected one, Resident #287 of five, Residents #4, #7, #9 and #14 , reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 33.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less then 5 percent. This affected one, Resident #4, of nine residents, Residents #241, #12, #32, #7, #236, #238, #287 and #239 reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 33. Record review revealed Resident #4 had an admission date of 10/05/19. Resident #4 diagnosis included obesity, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The minimum data assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #4 had been cognitively intact, required limited assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene and extensive assistance for transfers. Resident #4's plan of care dated 01/21/2 included nursing staff to administer medications as per physicians orders. Observation of medication administration on 01/22/20 at 09:00 A.M. [...]
28 fire safety citations on file: 10 on May 28, 2025, 11 on May 18, 2023, 7 on January 23, 2020.
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) | 3.79 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.54 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.61 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.59 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.66 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 77.3% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 76.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.00 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 3.87 on weekdays and 3.61 on weekends, 7% 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 4.59 in April to June 2025 to 3.79 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.54 | 3.87 | 3.61 | 0.0% | 6 of 90 | 54 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.53 | 3.60 | 3.17 | 0.1% | 1 of 92 | 57 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.40 | 0.74 | 3.61 | 2.84 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 53 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.59 | 0.91 | 4.94 | 3.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 51 |
| 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 | 23.1 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.7 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.6 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.3 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Tranquility of Richmond Heights's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.4% 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. 69 eligible stays.
11.2% 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. 59 eligible stays.
7.1% 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.
45.5% 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. 22 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. 27 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. 27 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. 1 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.