THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Laurels of Chagrin Falls has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided at this facility. Ranking #557 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio places it in the bottom half, and #51 out of 92 in Cuyahoga County shows that there are only a few local options rated better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is rated average, with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 45%, which is slightly better than the state average. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $93,486, indicating compliance issues more serious than 92% of Ohio facilities. While the facility does have good RN coverage, surpassing 97% of state facilities, there have been serious incidents reported. For example, one resident was discharged without proper planning for ongoing care involving essential nutrition, leading to a medical emergency shortly after leaving. Additionally, another resident did not receive timely antibiotics for a suspected bone infection, resulting in hospitalization due to complications. Overall, families should weigh the facility's strengths in RN coverage against these significant weaknesses in care and compliance.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Ohio
- #557/913
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $93,486 in fines. Higher than 79% of Ohio facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 54 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Ohio. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 29 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
Near Ohio average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure sufficient bathing was pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 care conferences were completed quarterly for Residents #13 a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #11's pressure ulcer wound care was co...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3's nutritional supplement was implem...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #36's expired insulin was discarded as appropriate. T...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the blood glucose testing (BGT) machine/glucome...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and menu spreadsheet review, the facility failed to follow the menu as written. This affected two residents (#16 and #34) of two residents receiving a puree diet. Facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 provide routine scheduled showers for three residents ...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 assess one resident, Resident #44's blood sugar prior ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
2 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
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, hospital record review, Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) Team documentation and interview, the fa...
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 F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive discharge summary. This affected one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for a safe dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
13 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate, necessary and timel...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure antibiotics were ordered and administered to Resident #16 in a timely manner to treat suspected osteomyelitis (bone infe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident #184's baseline care plan addressed the resident's chronic pain. This affected one resident (#184) of three residents review...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 03/05/19. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure to care planning and a physician's order were in...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure gradual dose reductions (GDRs) were attempted or considered ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to draw blood labs according to orders. This affected two of five resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure baths or showers were documented appropriately. This affected one of four residents reviewed for choices and activities of daily liv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received scheduled and appropriate activities on the weekend. This affected Residents #7, #21, #22 and #84 a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 03/05/19. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five perc...
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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary kitchen area, ensure foods were stored in a clean and sanitary manner to prevent contamin...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents residing in the facility.
Findings i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2020
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate activities for Resident #14. This affected one resident (#14) of one reviewed for activities.
Findings inclu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were consistently ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to serve the correct portion sizes to meet the needs of residents receiving pureed diets. This affected four (Residents #2, #25, ...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to properly store, prepare and maintain food in a clean and sanitary manner in the main kitchen and one nursing unit refrigerator...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete a risk assessment or implement infection control measures for Legionella. This had the potential to affect all 41 residents in the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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: 3 harm violation(s), $93,486 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 29 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $93,486 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (35/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls Staffed?
CMS rates THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS during 2020 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 25 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 The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls?
THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS 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 CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 82 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 56% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHAGRIN FALLS, Ohio.
How Does The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS 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 3-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 The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls Stick Around?
THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for Ohio nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls Ever Fined?
THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS has been fined $93,486 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Ohio average of $34,014. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is The Laurels Of Chagrin Falls on Any Federal Watch List?
THE LAURELS OF CHAGRIN FALLS 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.