EAST PARK CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
East Park Care Center in Brook Park, Ohio, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall performance. With a state rank of #858 out of 913, they are in the bottom half of Ohio facilities, and at #84 of 92 in Cuyahoga County, only a handful of local options rank lower. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2022 to 25 in 2024, and staffing is a concern with a turnover rate of 65%, significantly higher than the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $48,822 in fines, which is troubling and higher than 89% of Ohio facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident who sustained a fracture but did not receive timely medical treatment, and another resident who developed maggots due to inadequate hygiene care, highlighting serious lapses in resident care. While the quality measures rating is relatively good at 4 out of 5, the overall poor ratings and numerous deficiencies present significant red flags for families considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #858/913
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 65% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $48,822 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Ohio average (3.2)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
19pts above Ohio avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
17 points above Ohio average of 48%
The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), and policy review, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
18 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, hospital record review, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident funds were conveyed timely upon a discharge or...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 02/27/21 with diagnoses including cerebral infrac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were imple...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a required Minimum Data Set...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident interview, medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents who required staff assistance with baths/showers...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, review of hospital documents, staff documents and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an accurate weight was obtained to monitor nutritional status...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident and staff interview, medical record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to accurately document and effectively manage resident's pain. This affected one (#204) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, review of pharmacy recommendations, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed in a timely man...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication orders had an end date. This affected one (#14)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of manufacturer's instructions and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #30 received timely and adequate dental services. This affected one resident (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, review of the hospital discharge documents and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure effective communication between attending physicians and administration to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure grievances during resident council meetings related to evening snacks not being distributed were responded to timely and appropriatel...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 09/27/24. Diagnoses included right femur fracture...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen and further failed to ensure male staff with beards wore hair restrai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary and safe environment. This had the potential to affected all 50 residents residing in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility assessment and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment contained ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.
Bas...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, closed medical record review, review of pest control invoices and interview, the facility failed to treat ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0624
(Tag F0624)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide an orderly discharge for form...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, infection control log review and interview, the facility to timely obtain lab servi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website review, pest control invoices review, policy re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) log, personnel record review, court docket review, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to implement their abuse ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care for residents. This aff...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and discarded when expired. This had the potential to affect all 45 residents currently residing in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Considerations for Preventing Spread of COVID-19, and review of the CDC COVID Tracker website t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of resident fund accounts and spend down letters and interview the facility failed to notify Residents #2, #33 and #41, who received Medicaid benefits, when the amount in the account r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #23, Resident #29 and Resident #41 were comprehensiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure opened food products were dated and labeled. This had the potential to affect 43 of 45 residents receiving food from the kitchen...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2019
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized plan of car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive discharge summary for Resident #48. This aff...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure stop dates within 14 days were included in orders for as-need...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain adequate infection control practices during meal delivery to prevent the spread of infection. This affected two reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure only pasteurized eggs were used for residents and failed to ensure all kitchen equipment was clean and stored in a sanit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $48,822 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 36 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $48,822 in fines. Higher than 94% of Ohio facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (20/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is East Park's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns EAST PARK CARE CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is East Park Staffed?
CMS rates EAST PARK CARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 65%, which is 19 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at East Park?
State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at EAST PARK CARE CENTER during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 33 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates East Park?
EAST PARK CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LIONSTONE CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 57 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BROOK PARK, Ohio.
How Does East Park Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, EAST PARK CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (65%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting East Park?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is East Park Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, EAST PARK CARE CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at East Park Stick Around?
Staff turnover at EAST PARK CARE CENTER is high. At 65%, the facility is 19 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 62%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was East Park Ever Fined?
EAST PARK CARE CENTER has been fined $48,822 across 1 penalty action. The Ohio average is $33,567. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is East Park on Any Federal Watch List?
EAST PARK CARE CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.