Ohio ›Dayton

Riverside Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1390 King Tree Drive, Dayton, OH 45405 (opens Google Maps) · Montgomery County · (937) 278-0723· 180 certified beds · avg 164 residents/day · certified since Jun 29, 1992 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: COMMUNICARE HEALTH (110 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 2, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 2, 2025
$85,284
Fines, last 3 years
3.08
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Sep 2, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Sep 30, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 9, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Mar 1, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 31, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Aug 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 46 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689

  2. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint F-0835

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. F-0574

View all 46 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Sep 2, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Sep 2, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835
Sep 2, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. · F-0574
Sep 2, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693
Sep 2, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Apr 9, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Oct 7, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Oct 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Oct 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550
Oct 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Oct 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812
Sep 5, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Sep 5, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · from a complaint · F-0813
Sep 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550
Sep 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557
Sep 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint · F-0561
Sep 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677
Sep 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697
Jul 31, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
May 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. · from a complaint · F-0603
Jan 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Jan 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Jan 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Jan 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755
Jan 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Jan 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jan 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Sep 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602
Jun 23, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jun 23, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Jun 23, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jun 23, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582
Jun 23, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625
May 2, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
May 2, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
May 2, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
May 2, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 12).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 23
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 2

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201940D
202250E
202310D
2024231G ▲
2025132J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

2 fines totaling $85,284.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 2, 2025Fine$74,094
Apr 9, 2025Fine$11,190

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityOhio averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.08
Ohio average: 3.45
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.33
Ohio average: 0.60
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.91
Ohio average: 3.07
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityOhio avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.083.453.95bottom 31% in Ohio; bottom 17% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.330.600.69bottom 10% in Ohio; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.913.073.50bottom 47% in Ohio; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.290.420.48bottom 27% in Ohio; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.048.745.8top 12% in Ohio; top 18% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)23.143.942.9top 19% in Ohio; top 18% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.18, RN 0.35, weekend 3.01.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.18 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Riverside Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
DMH MSTR Lsco, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%02/07/2005
The Stephen L. Rosedale 2012 Spousal TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest22%02/07/2005
Berner, SusanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2013
Berner, SusanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2013
C.R. Stoltz Family Investment Company INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
C.R. Stoltz Irrevocable TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
DMH MSTR Lsco, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
Groves, DonnaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/14/2023
Health Care Holdings, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
I. Rosedale Family Investment Company INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
I. Rosedale Irrevocable TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
King Tree Mgmt., LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
King Tree Mgmt., LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/18/2025
Mathews, PreshesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/30/2024
Mathews, PreshesIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/30/2024
R.S. Wilheim Irrevocable TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
Romeo, DominicIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2023
Romeo, DominicIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2023
Ronald S Wilheim 2012 Spousal TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005
Rosedale Family Investment Company, INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2005

Showing 20 of 26 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 6 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Communicare Health — 110 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 109 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
  • "How do you communicate important notices to residents who speak another language or have trouble seeing or hearing?"
  • "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
  • "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Ohio midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 32% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 26 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 60 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Aventura at Carriage Inn1.4 miDayton, OH★★★☆☆2/5
Stonespring of Vandalia1.4 miDayton, OH★★★★★4/5
Siena Woods Care Center1.6 miDayton, OH★★★★☆3/5
Carecore at Mary Scott2.6 miDayton, OH★★★☆☆2/5
Grafton Oaks Nursing Center2.6 miDayton, OH★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Gem City Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center2.7 miDayton, OH★★★☆☆2/5
Maria Joseph Living Care Center3.2 miDayton, OH★★★★☆3/5
Trotwood Health & Rehab LLC3.7 miDayton, OH★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Arc at Trotwood LLC3.7 miDayton, OH★☆☆☆☆1/5
Widows Home of Dayton4.1 miDayton, OH★★☆☆☆1/5
Dunbar Health & Rehab Center4.3 miDayton, OH★★★☆☆2/5
Aventura at Shiloh Springs4.9 miTrotwood, OH★★☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Montgomery, OH — 40 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Dayton →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 365877.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details