South Hills Post Acute
60 Highland Road, Bethel Park, PA 15102 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 160 certified beds · (412) 831-6050 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 3 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 | 13.7% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.2% | 10.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.6% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.0% | 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 | 6.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.7% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.7% | 17.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.6% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.4% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.3% | 9.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.40 | 1.62 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.58 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ 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.
56.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 230 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 96 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 56.3%CMS range 48.8–61.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.9%CMS range 8.9–15.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 63.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 60.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 61.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.8%CMS range 3.4–9.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 160 beds and averages 138.1 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 22 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 is below 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 2.85 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.31 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.92 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-14 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to make certain a resident had an updated, person-centered care plan individualized to each specific resident's needs for four of six residents (Resident R90, R70, R21 and CR304).Findings include:Review of the facility policy Care Plan-Comprehensive Person-Centered dated 1/6/26, indicated each resident will have a comprehensive care plan developed that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs and will reflect current standards of practice for problem areas and concerns. Care plan interventions are chosen after data gathering, proper sequencing of events and careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem area and relevant clinical decision making.Review of Resident R90's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident discharged to the hospital on 5/9/26. 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 · Dcited before2026-05-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 review of facility policy, clinical record and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one of four residents (Resident R90).Findings include:Review of the facility policy Accidents and Incidents- Investigating and Reporting dated 1/6/26, indicated that all accidents and incidents involving residents, employees, etc., occurring on the premises shall be investigated and reported to the Administrator. The Nurse Supervisor shall promptly initiate and document the investigation of the accident or incident. Incident/Accident reports will be reviewed by the Safety Committee for trends related to the accident and analyze any individual resident vulnerabilities.Review of Resident R90's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident discharged to the hospital on 5/9/26. The diagnoses identified in the clinical record indicated fractured ribs of right…
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 · F2025-05-23 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly restrain hair to prevent the potential for cross contamination in the Main Kitchen. Findings include: Review of facility policy Food Preparation and Service reviewed 3/6/25, indicated food and nutrition services staff wear hair restraints (hair net, hat, beard restraint, etc.) so that hair does not contact food. During an observation on 5/22/25, at 11:00 a.m. Dietary Aide Employee E7 and Volunteer Dietary Aide Employee E8, were observed in the kitchen without beard restraints. During an interview on 5/22/25, at 11:05 a.m. the Dietary Manager Employee E9 confirmed the kitchen staff should wear beard restraints, if facial hair is present. 28 Pa. Code: 211.6(c)(d)(f) Dietary services.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-23 · 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
Based on review of facility policy, facility records, observation and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for six of fourteen residents as required (Residents R500, R501, R502, R503, R504, and R505) on two of three nursing units second and third floor. Findings included: Review of the facility policy Resident Rights dated 3/6/25, indicated the facility treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. Review of Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations §483.10(i) Safe Environment. The resident has a right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely. §483.10(i)(2) Housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. During a resident group interview (Residents R500, R501, R502, R503, R504, and R505) on 5/19/25, at 1:30 p.m., all six residents in attendance stated the staff rarely shut the hampers containing soiled linen. The smell of soiled…
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 · E2025-05-23 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 a review of facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or their representative received written notice of the facility bed-hold policy at the time of transfer for five of six residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident R10, R30, R61, R99, and R114). Findings Include: Review of federal regulation §483.15(d) Notice of Bed-Hold Policy, indicated: -Facilities must provide written information about these policies to residents prior to and upon transfer for such absences. This information must be provided to all facility residents, regardless of their payment source. These provisions require facilities to issue two notices related to bed-hold policies. -The first notice could be given well in advance of any transfer, i.e., information provided in the admission packet. Reissuance of the first notice would be required if the bed-hold policy under the State plan or the facility's policy were to change. -The second…
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 · E2025-05-23 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were aware of residents with fluid restriction orders to make certain acceptable parameters of nutritional status were maintained for three of three residents on physician ordered fluid restrictions (Resident R61, R27, and R16). Findings include: The facility policy Resident Hydration and Dehydration Prevention dated 3/4/25, indicated physician orders to limit fluids will take priority over calculated fluid needs. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R61 was admitted /readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R61's Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 5/9/25, included diagnoses of cardiomyopathy (disease of the heart muscle), high blood pressure, and chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function). Review of a physician's order dated 9/23/24, indicated a 1500 milliliter (ml) daily…
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 · D2025-05-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents are free of significant medication errors for two of three residents (Resident R24 and R63). Findings include: Review of the United States Food and Drug Administration prescribing information dated 09/2017, indicated Coreg (carvedilol) is an alpha-/beta-adrenergic blocking agent indicated for the treatment of mild to severe chronic heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction following myocardial infarction in clinically stable patients, and hypertension. Listed in the adverse reactions / side effects were bradycardia (low heart rate) and hypotension (low blood pressure). Review of facility policy Administering Medications reviewed dated 3/3/25, previously reviewed 11/1/24, indicated medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review 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 · E2025-04-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 review of facility policy, resident interviews, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide prompt assistance to meet residents care needs for five of fifteen residents who require care (Residents R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5). Findings included: Review of facility policy Resident Rights last reviewed 11/01/24, indicated employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to a dignified existence, be treated with respect, kindness and dignity. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, indicated that a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) is a brief screener that aids in detecting cognitive…
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 · E2025-04-03 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 review of facility policy, resident interviews, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet residents care needs for five of fifteen residents who require care (Residents R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Answering the Call Light dated 11/1/24, indicated the facility will listen to the resident's request, do what the resident asks if permitted, if you promised the resident you will return with an item or information, do so promptly. If assistance is needed when you enter the room, summon help by using the call signal. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident R1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the MDS dated [DATE], Review of Section I, did not have diagnosis listed. The admission record did included diagnoses of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage in hemisphere, subcortical (subtype of a stroke) and ambulatory dysfunction (difficulty in walking). Review of…
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 · Dcited before2024-05-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one of three residents (Resident R1), which resulted which resulted in an overdose. Findings include: Review of policy Opioid Use Disorder on 1/18/24, states that patients will be assessed for the risk of opioid use disorder (OUD). Interventions to minimize opiod overdose will be implemented as appropriate. Review of Resident R1's admission record indicated that he was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-periodic assessment of care needs) dated 5/7/24, included diagnoses of fracture of femur (long bone of upper leg that is broke), opioid dependence (physical and psychological reliance on opioids-found in pain medication, or illegal drugs like heroin), alcohol use, high blood pressure, emphysema (lung disease that results from damage to the air sacs in the lungs). Resident is alert and oriented, able to make own decisions and…
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.
Show the remaining 10 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-26 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 review of facility policy, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to establish a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission/readmission for three of five residents (Resident R301, R307 and R312). Findings include: A review of facility policy Person Centered Care Plan reviewed 1/18/24, indicated it is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a baseline person-centered care plan for each resident within 48 hours of admission/readmission that will include the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care that meet professional standards of quality care. A review of the clinical record indicated Resident R301 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes (a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), high blood pressure and colon cancer. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 4/21/24,…
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 · E2024-04-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 review of clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide prescribed treatment and services related to the care of pressure ulcers for three of five residents (Resident R22, R76, and R85). Findings include: The facility policy Skin Integrity and Wound Management dated 1/18/24, indicated that an initial and ongoing nurse assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence skin health, wound impairment, and the ability of the wound to heal will be performed. Complete a comprehensive evaluation of the resident upon admission and identify the resident's skin integrity status. During the course of the survey, observations of residents with wound orders were completed as follows: Observation 1: 4/23/24, beginning at approximately 11:30 a.m. Observation 2: 4/24/24, beginning at approximately 9:30 a.m. Observation 3: 4/24/24, beginning at approximately 12:00 p.m. Observation 4: 4/24/24, beginning at approximately 2:30 p.m. Observation 5:…
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 · E2024-04-26 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that a pneumococcal immunization was offered to two of five residents (Resident R101 and R119). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Pneumococcal Vaccination dated 1/18/24, indicated the facility will provide the opportunity to receive the appropriate pneumococcal vaccine to all patients/residents. The policy further stated the facility will offer the PCV20 (pneumococcal conjugate) vaccine to adults 19-[AGE] years of age with underlying medical conditions. Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) document, Pneumococcal Vaccination: Summary of Who and When to Vaccinate last reviewed 1/24/22, indicated that CDC recommends pneumococcal vaccination for all adults 65 years or older, and for adults 19 through [AGE] years old who have certain chronic medical conditions or other risk factors. Included in this list were: alcoholism, chronic liver disease, chronic lung…
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 · D2024-04-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medications and medication supplies were properly stored and/or disposed of in one of three medication rooms (Second-floor medication room) and two of seven medication carts (Second-floor medication cart for rooms 211-225 and Second-floor medication cart for rooms 241-255). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals dated [DATE], indicated: -Facility should ensure that all medications and biologicals, including treatment items, are securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible by resident and visitors. -Facility should ensure that medications and biologicals that: (1) have an expired date on the label; (2) have been retained longer than recommended by manufacturer or supplier guidelines; or (3) have been contaminated or deteriorated, are stored separately from other…
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 · Dcited before2024-03-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 review of facility policy, clinical records and incident reports and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervison and assistance to prevent accidents for one of five residents (Resident R1). Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Safe Resident Handling Program, dated 1/18/24, indicated that the facility will maintain a safe care environment. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pneumonia, bladder dysfunction, and seizure disorder. A review of the MDS (Minimum Data Set - resident assessment and care screening) dated 2/14/24, indicated that Resident R1 was alert and oriented and able to make needs known. A review of the care plan dated 2/10/24, indicated that Resident R1 required a one person assist with all ADL's (activities of daily living). A review of a nurse progress note dated 2/18/24, indicated that while care was being…
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 · E2024-02-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 a review of facility policy, facility provided documents and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control practices related to COVID 19, and risked the potential for the spread of the virus, in four of four resident rooms ( Rooms 109, 114, 225 and 242). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled COVID-19 Testing and Management of: Symptomatic Person, Close Contacts and Outbreaks last reviewed 1/18/24, informed once the patient has been discharged , transferred, or transmission based precautions have been discontinued, the room should undergo appropriate cleaning and surface disinfection before it is returned to routine use. EVS (Environmental Services) Director should complete the Discharge/Turnover Checklist when a patient is taken off precautions, transferred or discharged . Review of facility policy titled Discharge/Turnover Room Cleaning, last reviewed 1/18/24, informed resident/patient rooms are cleaned and disinfected after discharge/turnover. Turnover…
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 · B2026-05-14 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 review of facility policy, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for two of three residents (Residents R302, and R303).Findings include:Review of form instructions for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) indicated a Medicare health provider must give an advanced copy of the NOMNC to enrollees receiving skilled nursing, home health, or a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility no later than two days before termination of services.A review of the facility NOMNC form indicated that the resident has a right to appeal non-payment of services, your request must be made no later than noon of the day before the effective date of non-coverage. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R302 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and the last covered day of Part A service was 1/23/26. Review of a progress note dated 1/23/26, at 12:53 p.m. revealed Discharge Note: Patient is electing 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.
- No harm found · C2025-05-23 · tag F0575 — widespreadPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post complete contact information for Adult Protective Services and the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program as required, on three of three nursing units (First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor nursing units). Findings include: During observations completed on 5/21/25, of the First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor nursing units failed to reveal the address and email contact information for Adult Protective Services and the Office for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program posted in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents or resident representatives. During interview, on 5/22/25, at 8:20 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to post complete contact information for Adult Protective Services and the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program as required, on three of three nursing units. 28 Pa. Code: 201.14(a)Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code: 201.18(e) Management.
- No harm found · C2025-05-23 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure postings of the location Department of Health most recent survey results were readily accessible to residents and visitors, for three of three locations (nursing units first, second, and third). Findings Include: During an observation on 5/19/25, at 10:20 a.m., no postings were observed in the facility identifying the location of the Department of Health's most recent survey results. During an interview on 5/22/25, at 8:20 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed the facility failed to ensure postings of the location Department of Health most recent survey results were readily accessible to residents and visitors, for three of three locations (nursing units first, second, and third). 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee.
- No harm found · C2025-05-23 · tag F0579 — widespreadProvide information about how to apply for and use Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to display written information on applying for Medicare and Medicaid benefits and receiving refunds for previous payments covered by Medicare and Medicaid as required, on three of three nursing units (First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor nursing units). Findings include: During observations completed on 5/21/25, of the First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor nursing units failed to include information on how to apply for Medicare and Medicaid benefits and receiving refunds for previous payments covered by Medicare and Medicaid. During interview, on 5/22/25, at 8:20 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to display written information on applying for Medicare and Medicaid benefits and receiving refunds for previous payments covered by Medicare and Medicaid as required, on three of three nursing units. 28 Pa. Code: 201.14(a)Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code: 201.18(e) 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PACS GROUP — 274 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROVIDENCE GROUP NH, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 11/01/2024 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| PACS GROUP, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| PACS HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| APT, FREDERICK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| GRIMM, MARCIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| 60 HIGHLAND ROAD PA OWNER LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| CARETRUST GP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| PA HOLDCO 1 BETHEL PARK LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| PA HOLDCO 2 BETHEL PARK LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| DITULLIO, NICHOLAS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| HANCOCK, MARK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| MURRAY, JASON | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 organizational owners 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
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 395731. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-14, 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.