Townview Health And Rehabilitation Center
300 Barr Street, Canonsburg, PA 15317 · For profit - Corporation · 118 certified beds · (724) 746-5040 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2022
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 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 | 26.1% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.6% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 16.1% | 10.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.7% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.9% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.2% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.2% | 25.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.4% | 17.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.4% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.4% | 68.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.0% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.4% | 9.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.70 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.28 | 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.
55.0% 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 89 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.2% 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 41 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 55.0%CMS range 45.3–66.4 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 7.2–15.8 | 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 | 73.2% | 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 | 68.3% | 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 | 65.8% | 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 | 96.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 4.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 3.9–14.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 118 beds and averages 94.9 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.06 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.85 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 3.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.21 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-18 · 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, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent accidents, which resulted in actual harm, requiring further treatment for aspiration pneumonia for one of six residents (Resident R1). Findings include: Review of the facility Fall and Accident Prevention Program policy dated 3/26/25, indicated the facility will provide a safe environment that is free from hazards and activities that may result in an accident. Review of the facility policy Restorative Nursing-Eating/Swallowing policy dated 3/26/25, indicated activities will be provided to improve or maintain feeding food and fluids that may include providing total assistance for eating to maintain the ability to consume nutrition. Review of Resident R1's face sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 5/2/25, indicated diagnoses of MS multiple…
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 · D2026-02-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Nursing Documentation dated 3/26/25, indicated, changes in resident condition must be noted and charted and communication with family should be documented as well. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 5/2/25, indicated diagnoses of MS multiple sclerosis (long lasting chronic disease of the nervous system), chronic pain, depression, and anxiety. The resident is alert and oriented, is understood, and understands. Review of a nurse progress note dated 1/11/26 indicated Resident R1 was choking and vomiting food, was assessed, the physician was notified, and a chest Xray was ordered. Review of a nurse progress note dated 1/12/26 indicated the X-ray impression was minimal right base atelectasis (blockage in the air sacs of the lung) and Augmentin (an antibiotic) 875/125 mg (milligrams) PO (by mouth) BID (two times a day)…
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 · D2026-02-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to report possible neglect for one of five residents (Resident R1).Findings include: Review of facility policy Abuse Prevention Policy dated 3/26/25, indicated alleged violations involving abuse/neglect are reported immediately to the Administrator, and report results of all investigations to the Administrator and to the PA Department of Health within 5 working days of the incident. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 5/2/25, indicated diagnoses of MS multiple sclerosis (long lasting chronic disease of the nervous system), chronic pain, depression, and anxiety. The resident is alert and oriented, is understood, and understands. Resident R1 is dependent on staff for all ADL's (activities 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 before2026-02-18 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to investigate a choking incident to rule out possible neglect for one of five residents (Resident R1).Findings include: Review of facility policy Abuse Prevention Policy dated 3/26/25, indicated all alleged violations involving abuse/neglect are promptly and thoroughly investigated. An incident report should be completed by the nurse assigned to the resident. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 5/2/25, indicated diagnoses of MS multiple sclerosis (long lasting chronic disease of the nervous system), chronic pain, depression, and anxiety. The resident is alert and oriented, is understood, and understands. Resident R1 is dependent on staff for all ADL's (activities of daily living) A 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 · E2024-10-25 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 the facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (written instructions such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for thirteen of the eighteen residents reviewed (Resident R5, R19, R25, R27 R30, R46, R51, R52, R59, R60, R64, R86, R87). Findings include: A review of the facility policy Advanced Directives last reviewed 3/27/24, indicated the facility will comply with the requirements related to maintaining written policies and procedures regarding advance directives, including provisions to inform and provide written information to all adult residents concerning the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and formulate an advance directive. A review of the medical record indicated Resident R5 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes, dementia (decline in 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 · D2024-10-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify physicians of increased and decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels and failed to assess residents for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood glucose), for two of nine residents reviewed (Residents R27, and R46). Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control defines diabetes as: Diabetes Mellitus is a chronic (long-lasting) health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy. Most of the food you eat is broken down into sugar (also called glucose) and released into your bloodstream. When your blood sugar goes up, it signals your pancreas to release insulin. Insulin acts like a key to let the blood sugar into your body's cells for use as energy. If you have diabetes, your body either doesn't make enough insulin or can't use the insulin it makes as well as it should. When there isn't enough insulin or cells stop responding to insulin, too…
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 before2024-10-25 · 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 interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent falls for one of four residents (Resident R51). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Documentation dated 3/27/24, indicated the nursing assistant will review the CNA Flowsheet which includes mobility and transfers needs. At the end of the shift the Nursing Assistant will document bed mobility and transfers. ADL documentation includes the level of resident's ability to perform tasks and the amount of staff assistance needed. Before change over, the Unit Manager, or designee will review each resident's ADL information and revise as necessary. Review of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine - Caregiver Guide and Instructions for Safe Bed Mobility published 4/28/17, indicated bed mobility refers to activities such as scooting in bed, rolling, side-lying to sitting, and sitting to lying down. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the pharmacy recommendations, clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation that pharmacy recommendations were reviewed and acted upon for two of five residents (Resident R25 and R79). Findings include: Review of Resident R25's pharmacy review progress note in the electronic medical record dated 7/27/23, at 6:59 p.m. indicated the MRR (medication regimen review) was complete, see recommendation. Review of Resident R25's pharmacy review progress note in the electronic medical record dated 10/27/23, at 6:26 p.m. indicated the MRR was complete, see recommendation. Review of the remainder of Resident R25's pharmacy review progress notes reviewed indicated no recommendations. Review of Resident R79's pharmacy review progress note in the electronic medical record dated 8/28/23, at 10:08 a.m. indicated the MRR was complete, see recommendation. Review of the remainder of Resident R79's pharmacy review progress notes reviewed indicated no recommendations. During an interview on 11/2/23, at 12:30 p.m. the Assistant…
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 before2023-11-02 · 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 and records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision that resulted in an resident elopement resident exits to an unsupervised or unauthorized area without the facility's knowledge) for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R64). This was identified as past non-compliance for one resident (Resident R64). Findings include: A review of the facility policy Elopement, reviewed 9/27/23, indicated the residents are assessed upon admission, quarterly, and change in condition by staff members to determine if they are at risk for elopement. The following may be used for residents identified as high risk for elopement: frequent monitoring of resident ' s whereabouts, individual to maintain interest level, environmental controls such as secure units with appropriate Code Alert device, alarmed doors, and restricted window openings. A review of the facility document Code Alert Procedure for the Secured Unit (Second Floor) reviewed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 observations, review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct ongoing accurate assessments to ensure that bed rails were used to meet residents' needs and the risks associated with bed rail usage for three of 12 residents (Resident R26, R52, and R82). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Bed Safety dated 9/27/23, indicated the facility provides services that promote safe use of beds, mattresses, and bed rails. The facility will evaluate beds, mattresses, if indicated side rails upon admission and then quarterly for risk of entrapment. Documentation of the evaluation will be maintained. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident R26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R26's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 8/4/23, indicated diagnoses of Multiple Sclerosis (MS - the immune system eats away at protective covering of nerve cells), chronic pain, 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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies, observation, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent for one of four residents (Resident R242). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Medication Administration Guidelines dated 9/27/23, indicated Only medications that are crushable can be crushed. (See list Medications That Cannot Be Crushed). Review of the facility provided document Meds That Should Not Be Crushed dated 02/2023 indicated Crushing extended-release meds can result in administration of a large dose all at once. Crushing delayed-release meds can alter the mechanism designed to protect the drug from gastric acids or prevent gastric upset. This list included: -Bupropion SR (sustained release) -Metoprolol succinate ER (extended release) -Potassium chloride The observations listed below revealed three medication errors out of 25 opportunities resulting in a medication error rate of 12.00%. Review of a physician's orders dated 10/24/23, indicated Resident R242 received: -10…
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 5 citations
- Potential for harm · F2022-11-10 · 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 interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the Main Kitchen which created the potential for cross contamination (Main Kitchen). Findings include: Review of facility policy Cleaning Instructions: Ice Machine and equipment dated 6/29/22, indicated the ice machine and equipment (scoops and receptacles that are used to hold or transport ice) will be cleaned and sanitized on a regular basis. During an observation on 11/7/22, at 9:30 a.m. it was revealed the ice machine in the main kitchen contained a brown substance inside the machine. During an interview on 11/7/22, at 9:50 a.m. the Dietary Manager Employee E4 confirmed the brown substance in the ice machine creating the potential for cross contamination. 28 Pa Code: 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee Previously cited 8/8/22
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy, review of facility provided documentation, review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment free from neglect for one of seven residents (Resident R10). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Abuse Prevention reviewed on 6/29/22, indicated that the facility maintains a comprehensive program dealing with all facets of abuse and neglect through education, which encompasses screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting. The facility identified neglect as a failure to provide good and services necessary to avoid physical harm mental anguish or mental illness. Review of facility provided documentation dated 10/12/22, indicated that Resident R10 had an incident identified as neglect when Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E1 left Resident R10 in the bathroom with no supervision. Resident R10 attempted to self transfer and fell which required neuro checks and xrays of her right wrist and hand, increased pain and medication. On 10/20/22, additional xrays…
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 before2022-11-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 reviews, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown origin for two of seven residents reviewed (Residents R42 and R50) and failed to identify, investigate and/or report two allegations of abuse and one allegation of possible neglect for one of seven residents (Resident R45). Findings include: A review of the facility policy Incident Report Documentation and Follow Up dated 6/30/21 and reviewed 6/29/22, indicated all incidents will be reported and investigated in a timely manner. An incident is any unusual occurrence that occurs to the resident and may include injuries of known or unknown origin. A review of the facility policy Abuse Prevention reviewed on 6/29/22, indicated that the facility maintains a comprehensive program dealing with all facets of abuse, neglect and mistreatment through education, which encompasses screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting. Abuse is…
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 before2022-11-10 · 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
Based on facility policy, review of facility provided documentation, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one of seven residents (Resident R10). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Incident Report Documentation and Follow Up reviewed on 6/29/22, indicated that an incident is any unusual occurrence that occurs and all incidents reported are investigated timely and plans of care revised. Any employee who provided care that contributed to the incident or who did not follow the plan of care will receive in-servicing addressing the concern. Disciplinary action will also be determined. Review of the facility provided documentation dated 10/12/22, indicated that Resident R10 had an incident identified as neglect when Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E1 left Resident R10 in the bathroom with no supervision or adequate assistance according to Resident R10's plan of care. Resident R10 attempted to self transfer and fall which required neuro checks…
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 · C2024-10-25 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility documents, information from the State Ombudsman Office and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman Office of resident transfers and discharges for past year, 10/2023 through 10/2024, as required. Findings include: A request to review facility documents on 10/23/24, of the facility's compliance in notifying the State Ombudsman Office revealed that the facility failed to provide documented evidence of notifying the State Ombudsman Office of resident transfers and discharges for the time period of 10/23/23 through 10/23/24. A review of information on 8/1/24, provided by the State Ombudsman Office revealed that the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman Office of transfers and discharges as required since 10/2021. During an interview on 10/23/24, at 10:21 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to report resident transfers and discharges to the State Ombudsman Office for a year period from 10/23/23 through 10/23/24, as required. PA Code: 201.29(f)(g) Resident rights.
“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 SHIMON LEFKOWITZ — 5 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 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOWNVIEW OPREATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2019 |
| LEFKOWITZ, SHIMON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 15% | since 03/01/2019 |
| MOSESON, JACOB | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 03/01/2019 |
| SIMHA, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 35% | since 03/01/2019 |
| ARSR ALPINE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 10/28/2020 |
| MAVADO MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| KOLAROSKY, KEVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2020 |
| TOWNVIEW REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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.
About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $803K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 395823. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-25, 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.