Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Avenue At North Ridgeville during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Mechanical lifts used for resident transfers were not properly maintained, resulting in malfunctioning equipment that required staff to manually force the device to operate. Multiple CNAs and a resident reported issues with the lifts, and the Maintenance Director confirmed that necessary repairs had not been completed. Manufacturer instructions requiring regular inspection and maintenance were not followed, affecting numerous residents dependent on these devices for safe transfers.
Multiple residents experienced late administration of scheduled medications by an LPN, resulting in a medication error rate of 14 percent, well above the acceptable 5 percent threshold. Errors included late dosing of medications such as levetiracetam, memantine, gabapentin, Depakote, Apixaban, and Dulera, with morning medications often given after the facility's established administration window. The LPN acknowledged the late administration, and the DON confirmed ongoing issues with timely medication passes.
Two residents experienced changes in their prescribed medications, but their representatives were not notified as required by facility policy. One resident with impaired cognition was started on a new diabetes medication, and another with intact cognition had a therapeutic interchange for GERD treatment. In both cases, the DON confirmed that notification should have occurred, but there was no documentation of such communication.
The facility did not update care plans for two residents to reflect a change in a resident's morning routine requested by family and to include all known medication allergies. One resident's care plan was not revised after a family request to allow the resident to stay in bed longer, and another resident's care plan did not list all documented allergies, despite facility policy requiring regular review and updates.
A resident with multiple medical conditions and incontinence was not provided an external urinary catheter system as ordered by a physician. Despite recommendations from a urology consult and requests from the resident and her representative, the facility did not implement the intervention, citing an undocumented policy. The care plan lacked interventions for the external catheter, and the resident agreed to alternative care only because the device was not permitted.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions and a documented allergy to metformin was prescribed and administered metformin for 24 days without proper identification or intervention by nursing staff or the consulting pharmacist. The allergy was inconsistently documented in the care plan, and neither the resident's representative nor the physician was notified of the new order or the allergy. The pharmacy's monthly review failed to note the irregularity, and staff interviews revealed gaps in communication and adherence to facility policy regarding allergy checks and reporting.
A resident with a documented allergy to metformin was prescribed and administered metformin for several weeks without proper physician clarification or notification to the resident's representative. The allergy was noted in the medical record but not included in the care plan, and multiple nurses administered the medication without addressing the allergy alert. Pharmacy staff and the consulting pharmacist did not effectively communicate or act on the allergy information, resulting in the resident receiving a medication to which they were allergic.
The facility did not post daily staffing information on a specific date, affecting all 92 residents. Observations revealed outdated staffing information at the front desk, with the most recent data missing. The Administrator confirmed the absence of current staffing information.
The facility failed to provide surgical wound and wound drainage care as ordered for a resident re-admitted after hospitalization for a scrotal abscess. The resident's re-admission assessment did not indicate the presence of a scrotal surgical wound or Penrose drain, and staff were unaware of the required care. Observations confirmed the lack of proper dressing, and documentation did not show evidence of dressing changes.
A facility failed to ensure accurate re-admission and skin assessments for a resident with multiple medical conditions, including a scrotal surgical wound and Penrose drain. Observations revealed the resident had a Penrose drain without covering, a large dressing on the neck, and a dressing around a suprapubic catheter with dried red drainage. An LPN confirmed the assessments did not document these conditions.
A resident experienced a fall resulting in a major injury, and the facility failed to provide timely and adequate care. Despite the resident's complaints of pain and visible signs of distress, the facility delayed obtaining necessary x-rays and did not send the resident to the hospital immediately. This resulted in actual harm to the resident, who was later diagnosed with a markedly displaced fracture.
The facility failed to ensure resident dignity and privacy, including an incident where a nurse used profanity towards a resident, a resident left exposed while toileting, and two residents with uncovered urinary catheter drainage bags in common areas.
The facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 significant change assessment for a resident who experienced a significant decline in functional abilities following a fall that resulted in an upper extremity fracture. The resident also had an indwelling urinary catheter that was not removed as ordered and continued to be used without proper documentation or justification. The MDS 3.0 Medicare 5-day assessment showed a decline in functional abilities and mobility, but a significant change MDS was not completed as required.
The facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were developed and summaries provided to two residents and/or their representatives. One resident with multiple health issues had no baseline care plan or care conference, and the family reported communication difficulties. Another resident had a baseline care plan initiated, but no summary was provided to the resident or family.
The facility failed to update care plans for two residents, one with a left arm fracture and an indwelling urinary catheter, and another with a neck fracture requiring a neck brace. The care plans did not reflect these critical care needs, leading to inconsistencies in care.
The facility failed to remove an indwelling urinary catheter for a resident as ordered and did not provide justification for its continued use. The resident returned from the hospital with the catheter, which was supposed to be removed on a specific night shift, but it remained in place throughout March. Staff interviews and observations confirmed the catheter was never removed, and there was no documentation explaining the need for its continued use.
Mechanical Lift Maintenance Deficiency Affects Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that mechanical lift (Hoyer) devices were properly maintained, resulting in equipment that did not function as intended for safe resident transfers. Observations and interviews revealed that at least one Hoyer lift had a right wheel that would not move due to strings being caught in it, preventing the legs from opening fully. Certified Nursing Assistants reported that the lifts were not working properly, with one stating that the spotter had to kick the wheels to separate the legs and move the device. The Maintenance Director confirmed that the Hoyer lift with the scale had not been serviced and required immediate attention. The Administrator indicated that replacement wheels had been ordered by a previous Maintenance Director but were not installed. A review of the manufacturer's instructions for the Hoyer lifts indicated that casters and axle bolts require regular inspection and that the legs must be fully opened for optimal stability and safety. The Director of Nursing identified 31 residents who required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers, including a resident with quadriplegia, anxiety disorder, and hypothyroidism, who was cognitively intact and dependent for activities of daily living. The deficiency was substantiated through observation, record review, and staff and resident interviews, and was investigated under two complaint numbers.
Medication Administration Errors Exceed Acceptable Rate Due to Late Dosing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician orders, resulting in a medication error rate of 14 percent, which exceeds the acceptable threshold of 5 percent. During observation, 41 opportunities for medication administration were reviewed, and six errors were identified, affecting four residents. The errors primarily involved the late administration of scheduled medications, with morning medications being given well past the facility's established administration window of 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. For one resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, dementia, and adjustment disorder, morning medications including levetiracetam and memantine, both scheduled twice daily, were administered late at 11:23 A.M. instead of within the scheduled window. The LPN responsible confirmed the late administration, and the resident also reported that medications were usually given earlier. Another resident with neurogenic bowel, anxiety disorder, and iron deficiency anemia did not receive morning medications until 12:01 P.M., resulting in a late dose of gabapentin, which was scheduled three times daily. The LPN again verified the late administration. Additional residents were affected by similar issues. One resident with diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and depressive disorder received Depakote, scheduled twice daily, late at 12:15 P.M. Another resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, atrial fibrillation, hyperlipidemia, and depression received Apixaban and Dulera, both scheduled twice daily, late at 12:42 P.M., and Furosemide was not administered until 2:51 P.M. The LPN acknowledged the late administration and indicated that this had been an ongoing problem. The Director of Nursing confirmed the late medication passes and noted that the LPN had previously reported difficulties completing medication passes on time.
Failure to Notify Resident Representatives of Medication Changes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify resident representatives of medication changes for two residents. For one resident with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia, there was no documentation that the resident's representative was informed when a new order for metformin was initiated. The resident had impaired cognition, and the lack of notification was confirmed by the Director of Nursing (DON) during an interview. For another resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, dementia, osteoarthritis, and GERD, there was no documentation that the resident's representative was notified when a therapeutic interchange was made from lansoprazole to omeprazole for GERD management. The resident had intact cognition, and the DON confirmed that the representative should have been notified of the medication change. Review of the facility's policy indicated that responsible parties should be notified of changes in the resident's condition or status.
Failure to Update Care Plans for Resident Allergies and Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised to accurately reflect changes in residents' needs and conditions. For one resident with Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation, and major depressive disorder, the care plan was not updated after the resident's daughter requested a change in the resident's morning routine to allow the resident to stay in bed longer. Despite documentation of this request and a conversation with the administrator, the care plan continued to state that the resident was to get up early in the morning for safety, and no revision was made to address the family's concern. In another case, a resident with multiple diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia had allergies to several medications. The care plan failed to include two of the resident's known allergies, specifically to metformin and Ativan, even though these were documented in the allergy alert profile. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that all allergies should be reviewed quarterly and acknowledged that the care plan had not been updated to reflect these additional allergies. These deficiencies were identified through interviews and record reviews, and were not in accordance with the facility's policy requiring regular review and updating of care plans.
Failure to Provide Physician-Ordered External Urinary Catheter System
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an external urinary catheter system for a resident with a physician order for its use. The resident, who had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and dementia, was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel, and required substantial assistance for transfers and toileting. Despite a physician order for an external urinary catheter to be applied nightly, the resident's care plan did not include this intervention, and the system was not implemented during the resident's stay. Documentation showed that the resident and her representative had requested the external catheter, and a urology consult recommended its use to reduce skin breakdown and infection. However, facility staff, including the DON and Administrator, stated that the external catheter system was not allowed, citing facility policy, although no such policy was documented or provided to the resident or her representative. Interviews with the resident confirmed that she had previously used an external urinary catheter at home and would have preferred to continue its use in the facility, but agreed to regular check and change care only because the external catheter was not permitted. The facility's admission agreement and information packet did not inform residents that external urinary catheters were not allowed. The lack of implementation of the physician-ordered external urinary catheter system, absence of related interventions in the care plan, and lack of clear facility policy or communication regarding the prohibition of the device led to the deficiency.
Failure to Identify and Address Resident Allergy During Medication Review
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure that a resident's allergy to metformin was properly identified and addressed during the monthly medication regimen review by the consulting pharmacist. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia, had a documented allergy to metformin in the allergy alert profile. However, this allergy was not consistently reflected in the resident's care plan, and a physician order for metformin was entered and administered despite the known allergy. The medication administration record showed that metformin was given daily for 24 days by four different nurses, even though the allergy was documented in the resident's profile and flagged in the electronic physician order system. There was no documentation that the resident's representative or the physician was notified about the new order for metformin or the resident's allergy to the medication. Additionally, the pharmacy's monthly review did not document the irregularity of the metformin order in the presence of the allergy, and the consulting pharmacist assumed the allergy had been previously addressed without further investigation. Interviews with facility staff and pharmacy representatives revealed a lack of communication and follow-up regarding the allergy and the medication order. The Director of Nursing confirmed that nurses should check for allergies before administering medications and that the resident's representative should have been notified. The consulting pharmacist acknowledged that the allergy should have been investigated further during the monthly review. Facility policies required pharmacists to review medication regimens and report irregularities, as well as evaluate new medication orders for allergies, but these procedures were not followed in this case.
Failure to Prevent Administration of Medication Despite Documented Allergy
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with multiple documented medication allergies, including an allergy to metformin, was prescribed and administered metformin without proper clarification from the physician. The resident had a history of type two diabetes mellitus, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dysphagia, and was noted to have impaired cognition. The allergy to metformin was recorded in the resident's allergy alert profile, but was not included in the care plan, and subsequent physician orders for metformin were entered despite the allergy being flagged in the electronic medical record. The medication administration record showed that metformin was administered daily for 24 days by four different nurses, with no documentation that the resident's representative or the physician was notified about the allergy or the new medication order. The pharmacy's documentation acknowledged the allergy, but there was no evidence that the pharmacy communicated this to the facility or that the consultant pharmacist addressed the issue during monthly reviews. The facility's policies required evaluation of medication allergies with new orders, but this process was not followed in this case. Interviews with the DON and pharmacy staff revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the allergy and the medication order. The DON confirmed that nurses should check for allergies before administering medications and that the resident's representative should have been notified. The consulting pharmacist admitted to assuming the allergy had been previously addressed and did not investigate further. This series of actions and omissions resulted in the resident receiving a medication to which they had a documented allergy, without appropriate review or notification.
Failure to Post Daily Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that daily staffing information was posted on 08/29/24, which had the potential to affect all 92 residents. During an observation at 11:38 A.M. on 08/29/24, it was noted that the staffing information displayed at the front desk was dated 08/27/24. Additionally, the staffing information for 08/28/24 was found tucked behind the sheet for 08/27/24, and there was no staffing information available for 08/29/24. An interview with the Administrator at the time of observation confirmed that the posted staffing information was outdated and that the information for 08/29/24 was missing.
Failure to Provide Ordered Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide surgical wound and wound drainage care as ordered by a physician for a resident following re-admission. The resident, who had a history of bipolar disorder, urine retention, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and neoplasm of the genital organs, was re-admitted to the facility after hospitalization for a scrotal abscess that required incision and drainage surgery. The hospital discharge documentation specified that the resident needed a nurse to change the Kerlix dressing twice a day and maintain a Penrose drain. However, the re-admission nursing assessment did not indicate the presence of a scrotal surgical wound or Penrose drain. Upon observation, the resident was found with a Penrose drain in the scrotal area without any covering or dressing. The treatment administration record and current physician orders did not show any evidence of dressing changes for the Penrose drain. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and proper documentation regarding the resident's condition and required care. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator confirmed the presence of the scrotal incision site with a Penrose drain and no dressing in place. This deficiency is an example of continued noncompliance from a previous survey.
Failure to Ensure Accurate Re-Admission and Skin Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate re-admission and skin assessments for a resident, which was identified through observation, medical record review, hospital documentation review, and staff interviews. The resident, who had multiple medical diagnoses including bipolar disorder, urine retention, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and neoplasm of the genital organs, was re-admitted to the facility after hospitalization for a scrotal abscess that required incision and drainage surgery. The hospital discharge documentation specified that the resident required a nurse to change the Kerlix dressing twice a day and maintain a Penrose drain. However, the re-admission nursing assessment and subsequent skin assessment did not document the presence of the surgical wound, Penrose drain, suprapubic catheter, or skin impairment on the left side of the neck. During an observation, the resident was found in bed with a Penrose drain in place without any covering or dressing, a large dressing dated several days prior covering the left side of the neck down to the shoulder, and a dressing around the suprapubic catheter tubing with dried red drainage. An interview with an LPN confirmed that the re-admission and skin assessments failed to address these critical aspects of the resident's condition. This deficiency affected the quality of care provided to the resident and highlighted lapses in the facility's assessment and documentation processes.
Failure to Provide Timely Care After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #100 received adequate and timely care and treatment following an unwitnessed fall with a major injury. On the evening of 03/03/24, Resident #100 fell and sustained a head injury. Despite the resident's medical history, including cerebrovascular accident with residual right-sided weakness and being on blood thinners, the facility did not send the resident to the hospital immediately. Instead, the resident was assisted back to her chair, and neurological checks were initiated. The resident's pain and injury were not adequately assessed or treated in the following days, despite verbal complaints of pain and visible signs of distress. On 03/05/24, the Nurse Practitioner was notified of the resident's bilateral arm pain and ordered x-rays, which were not obtained until 03/07/24. The x-ray results indicated a left arm fracture, and the resident was subsequently transferred to the hospital, where a markedly displaced fracture was diagnosed. The hospital questioned why the resident was not sent to the hospital immediately after the fall, given her medical condition and the severity of the injury. The facility's delay in obtaining the x-ray and providing appropriate care resulted in actual harm to the resident. Interviews with family members and staff revealed concerns about the resident's care and communication issues within the facility. The family reported that they had requested the resident be sent to the hospital immediately after the fall but were unsure why this did not happen. Staff interviews indicated a lack of familiarity with the resident's baseline condition and confusion about the process for ordering x-rays. The Director of Nursing acknowledged a delay in obtaining the x-ray due to a new nurse's unfamiliarity with the facility's procedures. Additionally, there were no post-fall assessments completed as required by the facility's policy, further contributing to the inadequate care provided to Resident #100.
Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity and Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #89 was treated with respect and dignity during care. Resident #89, who had intact cognition and required substantial assistance with activities of daily living, was involved in an incident where a Registered Nurse (RN) used profanity and engaged in a verbal altercation with the resident. The RN admitted to being frustrated and using inappropriate language, which was corroborated by a State tested Nurse Aide (STNA) and the resident himself. The facility's investigation into the incident, initiated after a family member's public review, concluded that no abuse occurred, but the RN's behavior was deemed disrespectful and not in line with the facility's customer service expectations. The facility also failed to provide privacy and dignity to Resident #02 while toileting. Resident #02, who had severely impaired cognition and required moderate assistance with toileting, was observed yelling for help while seated nude on the toilet with the door open, visible from the hallway. The call light was activated, but it took 10 minutes for a staff member to respond and provide privacy. The staff member admitted to leaving the doors open, and the Unit Manager confirmed that privacy should have been provided. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that indwelling urinary catheter drainage bags were covered in a dignified manner for Residents #39 and #56. Both residents, who had severely impaired cognition and used wheelchairs, were observed with uncovered urinary catheter drainage bags in common areas, exposing the contents to other residents, staff, and visitors. Staff members verified that the drainage bags should have been covered, and the Unit Manager confirmed that the facility typically used urinary drainage bags with built-in privacy covers.
Failure to Complete Significant Change Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 significant change assessment for a resident who experienced a significant decline in functional abilities following a fall that resulted in an upper extremity fracture. The resident, who had medical diagnoses including Sjogren syndrome, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, and a displaced fracture of the surgical neck of the left humerus, sustained a fall on 02/22/24. The incident report indicated that the resident attempted to get up unassisted to walk to the bathroom, fell, and landed on her left shoulder. An x-ray confirmed the fracture, and the resident was transported to the local emergency department for further evaluation. The resident also had an unrelated hospitalization due to pneumonia from 02/27/24 to 03/03/24 and returned to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter that was supposed to be removed on 03/04/24, but records indicated it was not removed as ordered and continued to be used without proper documentation or justification in the progress notes. The resident's MDS 3.0 Medicare 5-day assessment dated 03/10/24 showed a decline in functional abilities and mobility compared to the prior quarterly assessment dated 01/12/24, but a significant change MDS was not completed as required by the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual guidelines. Interviews with MDS nurses revealed they were unaware of the resident's continued use of the urinary catheter and did not recognize the decline in functional abilities in more than two areas until prompted to review the assessments side by side. The RAI Manual specifies that a significant change in status assessment must be completed when there is a major decline or improvement that impacts more than one area of the resident's health and requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan. The failure to complete the significant change assessment for the resident who had a decline in three areas of activities of daily living and six areas of mobility, as well as the continued use of an indwelling urinary catheter without proper documentation, represents a deficiency in the facility's assessment and care planning processes.
Failure to Provide Baseline Care Plans and Summaries
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and a summary provided to two residents and/or their representatives. Resident #100, who had a cerebrovascular accident with residual right-sided weakness, type II diabetes mellitus, and frequent falls, was admitted on [DATE] and transferred to a local hospital on 03/07/24. The medical record revealed no evidence of a baseline care plan or any care conference. The family of Resident #100 reported difficulty in contacting the facility and receiving updates on the resident's care. A falls plan of care was only initiated after the resident sustained a fall on 03/03/24. Resident #111, admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including a wedge compression fracture, adult failure to thrive, iron deficiency anemia, and anxiety, was transferred to the hospital on 03/10/24. Although a baseline care plan was initiated, there was no indication that the resident or their family received a summary of the plan. Interviews with family members and the Unit Manager confirmed that the facility did not provide the necessary care plan summaries to the residents or their representatives, contrary to the facility's policy.
Failure to Update Resident Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure resident care plans were updated to reflect individualized and necessary components of the residents' care. This deficiency affected two residents. Resident #20 had multiple medical diagnoses, including Sjogren syndrome, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, and a displaced fracture of the left humerus. After a fall and subsequent hospitalizations, the care plan did not include a notation that Resident #20 was non-weight bearing on the left upper extremity or that she had an indwelling urinary catheter. Despite observations and interviews confirming the presence of the catheter and sling, the care plan was not updated accordingly until much later. Resident #94, who had a displaced fracture of the first cervical vertebrae, dementia, muscle weakness, and a history of falls, also experienced a deficiency in care planning. After a fall that resulted in a neck fracture, the hospital provided explicit instructions to keep a neck collar on at all times. However, there was no order for the neck brace in the resident's record, and the care plan did not reflect the need for the neck brace until much later. Observations and interviews confirmed the resident wore the neck brace inconsistently, and staff were unsure if there was an order for it. The facility's policy on care planning, revised in December 2022, states that the interdisciplinary team will coordinate with the resident and their responsible party to create an appropriate plan of care based on assessments and reassessments. However, the facility failed to adhere to this policy, resulting in incomplete and outdated care plans for both residents. This deficiency was discovered during a complaint investigation.
Failure to Remove Indwelling Urinary Catheter as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to remove an indwelling urinary catheter for Resident #20 as ordered and did not provide justification for its continued use. Resident #20, who had medical diagnoses including Sjogren syndrome, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, and a displaced fracture of the surgical neck of the left humerus, was hospitalized for pneumonia and returned to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter. The physician's order indicated the catheter was to be removed on the night shift of 03/04/24, but records show it was not removed and remained in place throughout March 2024. Observations and interviews confirmed that the catheter was never removed as ordered, and there was no documentation explaining the need for its continued use. The care plan for Resident #20, which was revised in June 2022, did not reflect the presence of an indwelling urinary catheter, instead noting the resident's frequent incontinence of bowel and bladder. Interviews with staff, including an STNA, LPN, and the Unit Manager, revealed a lack of awareness and documentation regarding the catheter's continued use. The Unit Manager admitted to transcribing the order for catheter removal but was unsure why it had not been discontinued. The MDS Nurse later confirmed that the physician ordered the catheter's removal on 04/02/24, with instructions to monitor the resident's ability to void and reinsert if necessary after 24 hours.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 696 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 4 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near North Ridgeville
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northridge Health Center, The | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Crocker Pointe Health And Rehabilitation | 3.1 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Joshua Tree Care Center | 3.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| O'neill Healthcare North Ridgeville | 3.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Brookdale Westlake Village | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Avenue At North Ridgeville.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 2026) and official state health department websites.