Holy Family Manor
1200 Spring Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018 · Non profit - Church related · 208 certified beds · (610) 865-5595 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)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0607) — 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 | 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 improved from 4 to 5 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 | 17.8% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.7% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.6% | 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 | 6.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.4% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.1% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.1% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.9% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 37.2% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.6% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.1% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.79 | 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.
50.5% 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 443 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 33.8% 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 207 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 21% 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 | 50.5%CMS range 44.3–56.0 | 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 | 11.2%CMS range 9.1–13.2 | 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 | 33.8% | 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 | 25.1% | 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 | 31.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 4.8%CMS range 3.0–6.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.75 | 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 208 beds and averages 107.6 residents a day — about 52% occupied, or roughly 100 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.82 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 2.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.60 on weekdays — 31% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.88 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 documentation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to inform a resident and/or responsible party, in advance, of a treatment and treatment options prior to receiving psychotropic medication for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 67)Findings include: Review of facility documentation entitled, Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medication Use, revealed that before receiving any psychotropic medication, an informed consent must be obtained. The resident or responsible party was to receive information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the psychotropic medication. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), dementia, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had cognitive impairment and displayed symptoms of feeling depressed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 review, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess a resident's capability to self-administer medications for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 60)Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled, Self-Administration of Medications/Bedside Medication Storage, last reviewed April 28, 2026, revealed that a resident may exercise the right to self-administer medications when determined that this practice is safe. It was the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team to determine the following issues with regards to resident self-administration of medications: resident safety to self-administer medications, location of medication administration, determine who will be responsible for storage, and documentation of medication administration. If the resident indicated a desire to self-administer his or her medications, the Interdisciplinary Team would complete the Self-Administration of Medications UDA (User Defined…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the responsible party was notified of a change in condition for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 67)Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Change in Condition- Notification of Change, dated April 28, 2026, revealed the resident and the resident's legal representative/family, would be notified of any change in condition which included a change in behavior, medications, activities of daily living, a new onset of pain, and a change in treatment. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 67 had diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), dementia, and muscle weakness. Review of a nurse's note dated May 13, 2025, revealed the physician was notified and made aware that the resident was incontinent, had a change in behavior, and complained of pain when urinating. The nurse further noted that the physician directed staff to obtain a stat (immediate) urine sample for urinalysis to rule out an infection.…
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 · D2026-06-03 · 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
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to offer non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of as needed anti-anxiety medications for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 67)Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Change in Condition- Notification of Change, dated April 28, 2026, revealed the resident and the resident's legal representative/family, would be notified of any change in condition which included a change in behavior, medications, activities of daily living, a new onset of pain, and a change in treatment. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 67 had diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), dementia, and muscle weakness. Review of a nurse's note dated May 13, 2025, revealed the physician was notified and made aware that the resident was incontinent, had a change in behavior, and complained of pain when urinating. The nurse further noted that the physician directed staff to obtain a stat (immediate) urine sample for urinalysis to rule out an…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a reference check and verify a professional license/registration status prior to the start of employment for three of five newly hired employees. (Employees 3, 4, 5)Findings include:A review of the facility policy entitled, Resident Abuse Prevention and Reporting Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, dated April 28, 2026, revealed that the facility was to conduct screenings for potential hires for a history of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of residents, which included checking the appropriate licensing boards and registries for verification of license/certification to ensure the license was in good standing. Employee 3 (E3) had been working in the facility as a license practical nurse since April 15, 2026. There was no evidence that the facility submitted an inquiry to the state licensure board prior to E3 working among residents in the facility. Employee 4 (E4) had been working in the facility as a license practical nurse since April 6, 2026. There was no…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide ongoing assessment and monitoring for one of one sampled residents receiving dialysis (process of removing excess toxins and water from the blood). (Resident 24)Findings include:A review of the facility policy entitled, Dialysis, last reviewed April 28, 2026, revealed that staff were to complete the pre-dialysis portion of the dialysis communication form that provided information regarding the resident's ongoing status to send with the resident to dialysis, including the resident's pre-dialysis weight and vital signs. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 24 had diagnoses that included end-stage renal (kidney) disease and dependence on renal dialysis and had a physician's order for the facility to provide dialysis three days per week. There was a lack of evidence to support that Resident 24's pre-dialysis weight was obtained and documented on the dialysis communication forms that were to be completed before leaving for dialysis on 24 of 36…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in one of three resident dining rooms. (Second floor)Findings include: Observation in the Second Floor resident dining room on May 31, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., revealed areas of dark red discoloration along the length of the bottom shelf of the reach-in refrigerator, in addition to a puddle of water and soaked dish cloth. There was a carafe with water that was not dated. There was a carton of chocolate milk with a use by date of May 30, 2026. There was a plastic container with tartar sauce packets in it that had a thick layer of a dried white substance on the outside of the container. There was a bread knife directly touching a shelf in the cooler. In an interview on May 31, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., the Food Operations Manager confirmed that the water should have been dated, the expired milk removed, and that the knife was used to cut sandwiches and left in the reach-in cooler and should have been sent to the for washing and sanitizing. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility…
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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
Based on clinical record review, resident interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely assistance with care in a manner that maintained dignity for two of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 30, 86) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 30 had mild cognitive impairment and required assistance from staff to get out of bed. According to the care plan, she also had depressed mood and would call out at times. The care plan indicated that staff was to respond to her requests for care and allow the resident to make decisions about her activities. On June 4, 2024, at 10:09 a.m., the resident was observed in bed and her call light was on. The resident stated, I want to get out of bed. Between 10:09 and 10:38 a.m., the call light remained on, and several staff members walked by the room without assisting the resident. At 10:38 a.m., a staff member turned off the call light and left the room without assisting the resident. The resident began to call out, Help me! until staff assisted her at 11:07 a.m. Clinical record review…
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 · D2024-06-06 · 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 and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 45) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 45 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness, dementia, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated May 15, 2024, revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan revealed the resident has a potential for impaired skin integrity and staff was to apply Dermasaver gloves (gloves for skin protection) to both arms while the resident was in the wheelchair. On June 18, 2023, a physician ordered that staff to apply a Tubigrip (an elastic bandage for support) to the right hand under the Dermasaver glove. On June 4, 2024, at 1:12 p.m. and 2:07 p.m., and again on June 5, 2024, at 10:47 a.m. and 12:25 p.m., Resident 45 was observed in a wheelchair without the Dermasaver gloves or Tubigrip in place. There was no documented evidence that the resident had refused application of the Dermasaver gloves or…
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 · D2024-02-06 · tag F0836 — isolatedEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) Act, clinical record review and staff interviw, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of quality regarding the administration of physician prescribed medications was followed for one of four residents that received medication. (Resident 1) Findings include: Pa. Code Title 49 Professional and Vocational Standards Department of State Chapter 21, State Board of Nursing 21.145 Function of the Licensed Practical Nurse states that the LPN is prepared to functions as a member of the health care team based on preparation, knowledge, skills and understanding of past experiences in nursing situations and the LPN administers medications and carries out the therapeutic treatments ordered for the patient. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), anxiety and hypotension. Clinical record review revealed that on January 31, 2024, at 9:40 p.m. LPN 1 failed to identify Resident 1 by name band identification, photo…
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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CARFAGNO, EVELYN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2020 |
| COFFIN, BARBARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/15/2010 |
| COYLE, EDWARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2019 |
| HOFFA, ALLEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2020 |
| LYNCH, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/22/2022 |
| MORAHAN, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/22/2022 |
| PELLOSIE, CARMINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| RUSSO, PAMELA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/05/2019 |
| STANCZAK, JUDY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| WEISER, LEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
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 $488K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 395250. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-03, 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.