Good Shepherd Home Raker Center
601 St John Street, Allentown, PA 18103 · Non profit - Church related · 99 certified beds · (610) 776-3199 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.0% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.8% | 25.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.2% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.3% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 9.5% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.71 | 1.62 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.45 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 99 beds and averages 97.2 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.37 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.75 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.97 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.46 to 1.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-23 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from potential chemical restraints for one of five sampled residents who were ordered psychotropic medications. (Resident 26) Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 26 had diagnoses that included mood disorder and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was cognitively impaired and had been administered an anti-anxiety medication. On June 16, 2025, a physician ordered staff to administer an anti-anxiety medication, (alprazolam), every eight hours as needed for anxiety and agitated behaviors. There was no date in the order that indicated when staff was to stop administering the as needed medication. Review of Resident 26's Medication Administration Record revealed that staff had administered the alprazolam 21 times in July 2025, 17 times in August 2025, and 17 times in September 2025. There was no documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-23 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed to accurately reflect the residents' current status for three of 20 sampled residents. (Residents 1, 2, and 7) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included cerebral atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease. A physician's order dated July 1, 2025, directed staff to administer an anti-platelet medication (clopidogrel bisulfate). Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was administered an anti-coagulant medication during the review period, not an anti-platelet medication. The MDS inaccurately reflected the use of an anti-coagulant medication. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included peripheral artery disease and depression. A physician's order dated October 9, 2023, directed staff to administer an anti-platelet medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed each resident's needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment for two of 20 sampled residents. (Residents 16 and 36)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included adjustment disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Care Area Assessment (CAA) summary dated March 20, 2025, noted that the resident's psychotropic drug use was to be addressed in the care plan. Review of the medication administration records for March through September 2025, revealed the resident received an antidepressant (sertraline), which was classified as a psychotropic drug, during the review period. There was no documented evidence that interventions to address Resident 16's psychotropic drug use were included in the current care plan. In an interview on September 22, 2025, at 3:20 p.m., Registered Nurse 1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on August 20, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. revealed the following: There were two fruit flies in the food preparation area. There was a large fly on the cold preparation station. There was a pan of chicken on the same preparation station. The plastic wrap on the pan did not fully cover the pan and the chicken was open to air. There was an uncovered garbage can by the coffee preparation station. There was cheese in the reach in refrigerator with a use by date of August 18, 2024. There was a cup used to scoop thickener powder that was stored in the container, in direct contact with the thickener. Observation of the tray line service on August 21, 2024, at 11:10 a.m., revealed the following: Dietary Employee 1 (DE 1) was wearing gloves and operating the tray line. On multiple occasions, DE 1 turned away from the tray line and obtained food items from the refrigerator. DE 1 returned to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one of 20 sampled residents. (Resident 53) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 53 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis (damage to the nerves), quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all limbs of the body), and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had no cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. Review of the care plan revealed that staff was to ensure that the resident's call bell was within reach at all times. On August 20, 2024, at 1:07 p.m., Resident 53 was observed in her wheelchair in her room. The resident stated she wanted assistance to go back to bed. The call bell was placed on top of the resident's bed. The resident stated that the call bell was difficult to reach when it was on top of her bed. On August 21, 2024, at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to timely complete and transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for three of 20 sampled residents. (Residents 32, 48, 67) Findings include: The Long Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required MDS assessments, (mandated assessments of a residents' abilities and care needs), dated October 2019, indicated that annual, quarterly, and admission assessments were to be completed and transmitted electronically to the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid services (CMS) no later than 14 days after the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) which refers to the last day of the assessment observation period. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 32 had a quarterly MDS assessment, dated July 11, 2024, with an ARD of July 26, 2024, noted as still in progress and had not yet been completed or transmitted as per the time requirements. This quarterly assessment was overdue and had not been completed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for two of 20 sampled residents. (Residents 50, 61) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 50 had diagnoses that included myotonic muscular dystrophy (genetic disorder that causes progressive muscle loss), congestive heart failure, and respiratory failure. A physician's order dated July 22, 2024, directed staff to weigh the resident every week on Mondays due to congestive heart failure and weight loss. There was no evidence that staff attempted to weigh the resident on July 29, 2024, and August 5, 12, and 19, 2024. In an interview on August 22, 2024, at 12:38 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no evidence that staff weighed the resident per physician's order. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 61 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis (damage to the nerves), quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all limbs of the body), neuromuscular dysfunction of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on October 11, 2023, at 9:05 a.m. revealed two bottles of thickened water with a use by date of August 2, 2023, and September 2, 2023. There were four bottles of thickened prune juice with use by dates of October 8, 2023, and two bottles of thickened prune juice with use by dates of September 25, 2023. There was an accumulation of a brown substance on the handle of the meat slicer. In the walk-in refrigerator, there were eight half gallons of milk with use by dates of October 6, 2023. In the second walk-in refrigerator, there was a container of pickles dated October 2, 2023, and a container of olives dated October 1, 2023. There was a tray of two boxes of raw bacon stored over ready to eat hard boiled eggs. In the reach-in refrigerator, there were three wrapped blocks of sliced cheese that were not in the original packaging and not labeled or dated. There was an unidentified food substance that was not in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-13 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a comfortable, homelike environment for residents, staff and public on two of three nursing units. ([NAME] 3 and [NAME] 4) Findings include: Observation on October 11, 2023, at 10:22 a.m., revealed that the walls throughout the [NAME] 3 nursing unit were marred and scratched above and below the handrails, and the panels on the doors to resident rooms were also marred and scratched. The door jams to the main resident areas were marred and slightly damaged. Observations on October 11 and 12, 2023, at various times throughout the day, revealed that the lower half of the walls throughout the [NAME] 4 nursing unit were marred and scratched. The panels on the doors to resident rooms were marred, and the door jams to the main resident areas and the elevator doors had chipped paint and were slightly damaged. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the walls were marred and scratched. In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was exposed drywall with large areas of chipped…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-13 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services and treatment to prevent further limitations in range of motion for one of six sampled residents with limitations in range of motion. (Resident 72) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 72 had diagnoses of hemiplegia, (paraplegia), of the left non-dominant side after a stroke, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had memory impairment, was totally dependent on staff for dressing, and had impairment in range of motion on both sides of her upper and lower extremities. Review of an occupational therapy screen dated July 17, 2023, revealed that the resident was to wear a left upper extremity comfy orthosis, (hand splint), when she was out of bed. A current physician order wad for the resident to wear a left upper extremity hand splint when she was out of bed. Observation on October 11, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., 1:07…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-10-13 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of trash and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the trash compactor area on October 11, 2023, at 9:40 a.m., revealed an accumulation of debris that included gloves, cups, a plastic lid, paper items, a beverage carton, and a plastic syringe. FR 483.60(i) Food Safety Requirements Previously cited 11/10/22 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOD SHEPHERD REHABILITATION NETWORK | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/16/1988 |
| BESTE, ANNE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/27/2017 |
| DECAMPLI, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2024 |
| DECAMPLI, PAMELA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/27/2017 |
| EMRICK, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/17/2025 |
| FESSLER, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/27/2017 |
| GREEN, MATTHEW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2024 |
| GUSTAVE, LORI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/29/2021 |
| HAYMON, ELSBETH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/29/2021 |
| LYNCH, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/26/2024 |
| MARLES, BLAKE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2024 |
| MENDLES, JO-ANN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2024 |
| PESSINA, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/26/2024 |
| POSSINGER, MITCHELL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/17/2025 |
| SALICETTI, VICTOR | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/03/2019 |
| SPIGEL, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 08/03/2020 |
| TOPPER, MAURA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/27/2023 |
| YOUNG, ERIC | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2025 |
| KANE, CARRIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/06/2025 |
| DOSTAL, PATRICK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 60 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395018. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-23, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.