6831 North Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 · Portage County · (330) 297-4564
95 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1997
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366127 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 8, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since June 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $14,680 in the last three years; the largest was $14,680, and the latest is dated November 22, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.37 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.57 of those hours.
60.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Saber Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 126 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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, hospital/emergency department documentation, facility policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff verified Resident #2's documented allergy (to the COVID-19 vaccine) prior to administering the vaccine. The facility also failed to provide timely clinical assessment and medical intervention after the vaccine was administered. This affected one resident (Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. On 11/07/25 at 12:10 P.M., staff administered a COVID 19 vaccination to Resident #2 despite the vaccine being listed as an allergy in the resident's medical record. No immediate assessment or monitoring was completed following administration of the contraindicated vaccine. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to follow their legionella water management plan and practice appropriate hand hygiene during medication administration and wound care. This affected two residents (Residents #8 and #100) observed for infection control and had the potential to affect all 79 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of Self-Reported Incident (SRI), and interview the facility failed to notify the Board of Nursing of a licensed nurse's failure to perform their job duties. This affected 24 residents (Resident #6, #12, #15, #17, #24, #36, #39, #43, #52, #54, #56, #57, #59, #61, #66, #70, #82, #87, #88, #104, #105, #106, #107, #108) who resided on the second floor of the facility. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for one resident (Resident #9). This affected one of eight residents reviewed for call lights.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #94's discharge summary was signed, verifying receipt of discharge instructions. This affected one resident (Resident #94) of three reviewed for discharge process. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #94 revealed an admission date of 09/20/25 and a discharge date of 10/04/25. Diagnoses included foreign body in respiratory track, dysphagia, hypertension and anxiety. Review of the discharge Minimum Data Set 3.0 dated 10/04/26 revealed he was cognitively intact and required set-up to moderate assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed no evidence the resident or family member signed the discharge summary acknowledging wound care instructions as the form indicated a signature should be obtained. Interview on 04/01/26 at 10:13 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #8's care plan was revised to indicate an accurate right buttock wound classification and failed to ensure Resident #50's care plan included individualized interventions to address her diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease This affected one resident (Resident #8) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers and one resident (Resident #50) out of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide showers according to resident preferences. This affected two residents (Resident #9 and Resident #35) out of four residents sampled for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to provide individualized activities to meet Resident #9's interests. This affected one resident (Resident #9) out of one resident reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure treatment was in place to properly manage Resident #98's diabetic needs. This affected one resident (Resident #98) out of two residents reviewed for insulin administration. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure oxygen equipment was changed per physician order and stored appropriately. This affected two residents (Resident #35 and Resident #49) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. The census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was assessed upon return to the facility after dialysis. This affected one resident (Resident #2) out of one reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed in a timely manner. This affected three residents (#6, #12 and #66) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent (%). This affected two (Resident #6, #50) out of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility had three errors out of 28 opportunities for a medication error rate of 10.7%.The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete documentation in Resident #50's clinical record. This affected one (Resident #50) out of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 79.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility did not ensure Foley catheter drainage bags were covered in a dignified manner. This affected one (Resident #66) out of three residents reviewed for dignity and had the potential to affect two additional (Residents #29 and #38) identified by the facility as having a Foley catheter. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to make the appropriate notifications when Resident #79 removed his Foley catheter. This affected one (Resident #79) of three reviewed for dignity concerns. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure misappropriation of medications for Resident #80. This affected one (Resident #80) of three reviewed for abuse and had the potential to affect all 77 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review, facility investigation review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from potential abuse by failing to immediately suspend a staff member after an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse. This affected one (Resident #63) of three residents reviewed for abuse and had the potential to affect all 77 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place and falls were thoroughly investigated. This affected two (Residents #40 and #66) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 77.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure advance directive orders were consistent across electronic and paper medical records. This affected two residents (#5 and #29) out of 24 resident records reviewed. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the medical record, interview with staff, and review of facility policy the facility failed to release a restraint every two hours as ordered for Resident #22. This affected one resident ( Resident #22) of one resident reviewed for restraints. The facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place per the plan of care. This affected two residents (#22 and #29) of four residents reviewed for falls. Facility census was 84.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review, hospital record review, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance to prevent a fall with injury for Resident #80. Following the fall, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment, provide ongoing monitoring and physician notification to ensure the resident received timely medical treatment. Actual Harm occurred on 11/25/23 at 5:45 P.M. when Resident #80, who was cognitively impaired, at high risk for falls and with a history of recent falls, sustained a fall from the wheelchair in the lounge area following dinner, resulting in a left hip fracture. At the time of the fall, the facility identified the resident had wanted to go to bed and attempted to stand from the wheelchair independently (no staff were with the resident at the time of the incident). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on closed record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely family and physician notification following a fall with injury for Resident #80. This affected one resident (#80) of four residents reviewed for falls. The census was 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #80's family members were provided the proper procedure and documents necessary to access the resident's medical records from the facility. This finding affected one (Resident #80) of three residents reviewed for medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident #80's family/power-of-attorney (POA) of a change in the resident's health condition in a timely manner. This finding affected one (Resident #80) of three residents reviewed for changes in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident #80 and/or the representative of the resident's discharge to the hospital in a timely manner. This finding affected one (Resident #80) of three residents reviewed for discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident #80 and/or the representative of a bedhold notice at the time of the discharge to the hospital. This finding affected one (Resident #80) of three residents reviewed for discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #60 was provided timely incontinence care. This finding affected one (Resident #60) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was clean and sanitary. This had the potential to affect 72 residents who received meals from the kitchen, as one resident (#28) did not eat by mouth. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve pureed food at a smooth, proper consistency. This affected ten residents (#2, #9, #22, #32, #33, #40, #55, #59, #60 and #73) of ten residents who received a pureed diet as ordered by the physician. The facility census was 73.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with adaptive equipment for drinking to maintain independence. This affected two (Resident's #18 and #66) of two residents (Resident's #18 and #66) who received adaptive equipment for drinking. The facility census was 54.
19 fire safety citations on file: 6 on April 8, 2026, 8 on September 19, 2024, 5 on June 2, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 22, 2023 | Fine | $14,680 |
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) | 3.37 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.57 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.07 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.01 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 60.0% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 70.0% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.36 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 3.48 on weekdays and 3.07 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 27.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.33 in April to June 2025 to 3.37 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 | 3.37 | 0.57 | 3.48 | 3.07 | 27.7% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.30 | 0.59 | 3.42 | 3.01 | 27.4% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.57 | 3.57 | 3.06 | 24.9% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.33 | 0.53 | 3.47 | 2.98 | 18.0% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| 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 | 2.6 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 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 | 5.7 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.9 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Woodlands Health and Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.5% 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. 110 eligible stays.
12.3% 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. 110 eligible stays.
7.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 61 eligible stays.
63.6% 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. 55 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. 84 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 84 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 5 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: WOODLANDS HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC. CMS links this home to Saber Healthcare Group, a group of 126 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volpe, Benjamin | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Weisberg, William | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Nicoluzakis, Gregory | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Weisberg, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Saber Governance LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Shg Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Cekanski, Cynthia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/25/2021 | |
| Dinallo, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2013 | |
| Benjamin N. Volpe Family Dynasty Trust (dated December 29, 2020) | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/04/2023 | |
| Bnv Dynasty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/04/2023 | |
| Citrin Cooperman Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2013 | |
| Decanted William I. Weisberg Family Dynasty Trust (dated Sept 30, 2020 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/04/2023 | |
| Saber Governance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Shg Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Tcf National Bank | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/06/2024 | |
| Wiw Dynasty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/04/2023 | |
| Woodlands Re Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/06/2024 | |
| Cekanski, Cynthia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/25/2021 | |
| Dinallo, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2013 | |
| Nicoluzakis, Gregory | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Uhall, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2013 | |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2019 |
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.