Menno Haven Rehabilitation Center
2055 Scotland Avenue, Chambersburg, PA 17201 · Non profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds · (717) 262-1012 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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 (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.9% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.9% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
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.
73.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 626 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.4% 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 279 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 1.47 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 73.8%CMS range 70.3–76.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.6%CMS range 9.3–13.7 | 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 | 77.4% | 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 | 58.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 80.3% | 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 | 98.1% | 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 | 97.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 4.9–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 44 beds and averages 38.2 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.89 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.99 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.96 to 1.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-13 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies and observations, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food items at appetizing temperatures.Findings include: The facility's current policy regarding food temperatures, dated January 8, 2025, indicated that a tray line point of service standard for cold food must be held at a temperature of 31-41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and hot food between 155-170 degrees F. A delivery standard for cold food must be served at a temperature between 33-50 degrees F and hot food at 135-155 degrees F. Interview with Resident 38 on August 11, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. included that the resident stated, the food is always cold when I get it. Interview with Resident 35 on August 11, 2025, at 12:10 p.m. included that the resident stated, the food just doesn't seem to stay hot. Interview with Resident 37 on August 11, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. included that the resident stated, the food would taste much better if it wasn't always cold. The menu for Wednesday (undated) revealed that the lunch meal included cold Italian couscous…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-13 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policies and clinical record reviews, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a physician's order was obtained to provide specialized respiratory treatment for one of 25 residents reviewed (Resident 45).Findings include:The facility policy for non-invasive ventilation (CPAP- continuous positive airway pressure used to provide patent airway during periods of sleep apnea (breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep), dated January 8, 2025, revealed that the facility was to obtain an order for the use of the CPAP device and settings from the practitioner.An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a federally-mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 45, dated July 30, 2025, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact and used non-invasive ventilation. A care plan for the resident, dated July 23, 2025, revealed that the resident was to use CPAP per the physician's order. A nursing note, dated July 29, 2025, at 1:55 p.m. revealed that Resident 45 used CPAP at bedtime.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 · D2025-08-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as interviews with residents, family members, and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain professional practices that support infection prevention and control for one of 25 residents reviewed (Resident 35).Findings include: The facility's policy regarding hand hygiene, dated January 8, 2025, indicated that all team members will be trained and complete hand hygiene competencies at regular in-service on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections upon hire and no less than annually. Staff are to use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62 percent alcohol; or, alternatively, soap at times that include before and after handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc., after removing gloves, and before and after entering isolation precautions settings. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. The facility's Wound Care Observation Checklist for Infection Control, completed by Registered Nurse 2 on June 10, 2025, revealed…
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 · E2024-08-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address the care needs for two of 16 residents reviewed (Residents 17, 29). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding comprehensive care plans, dated June 12, 2024, indicated that the interdisciplinary team, in conjunction with the guest and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each guest. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will include measurable objectives and timeframes and describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the guest's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychological well-being. An admission MDS assessment for Resident 17, dated July 4, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood, could understand others, and had a diagnosis which included dementia. A care plan for the resident, dated June 28, 2024, and resolved on July…
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 · Ecited before2024-08-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 review of policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was thawed as per facility policy and that food stored in the kitchen was labeled, dated and secured. Findings include: The facility's policies regarding thawing frozen foods and food storage, dated June 12, 2024, revealed that food should never be thawed at room temperature and any food that has been opened must be labeled, dated and secured in such a way that the food item is air tight. Observations in the kitchen on August 5, 2024, at 10:23 a.m. revealed that there was a total of 38 hot dogs thawing on the counter at room temperature. Observations in the walk-in cooler on August 5, 2024, at 10:27 revealed that there was approximately one cup of sage in a plastic bag that was undated and unsecured. Observations in the meat cooler on August 5, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. revealed that there was one piping bag (a kitchen tool in the shape of a cone used for decorating cakes, pies and pastries) full of whip cream that was undated and unsecured. Observations in dry…
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 · E2024-08-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented for three of 16 residents reviewed (Residents 11, 26, 29). Findings Include: An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 11, dated June 11, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood, could understand others, and had diagnoses that included a hip fracture. A care plan for the resident, dated July 5, 2024, revealed that the resident was on a Restorative Nursing Program for active range of motion, and the resident was to perform 15 ankle pumps (bend foot up and down at the ankle joint) and 15 ankle rolls (roll ankle to the right in a circular motion, and then to the left in a circular motion) two times per day. Review of nurse aide documentation for Resident 11, dated July and August 2024, revealed that staff documented the 15 ankle pumps and the 15 ankle rolls as Not Applicable (NA) during the day shift on July 24, 25,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · 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 a review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician was notified timely about a change in condition for one of 16 residents reviewed (Resident 11). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding notification of changes, dated June 12, 2024, revealed that the physician was to be notified with any changes in a resident's condition. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 11, dated July 11, 2024, indicated that the resident was understood and could understand, was cognitively intact, required substantial assistance for care, was receiving a diuretic medication (a drug that causes increased urine output), and had diagnoses that included end-stage kidney disease. A care plan for Resident 11, dated July 5, 2024, revealed that the resident was on a diuretic for high blood pressure and required daily monitoring for effectiveness. Physician's orders for Resident 11, dated July 12, 2024, included…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies, clinical records, and observations, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a baseline care plan was developed and implemented for one of 16 residents reviewed (Resident 50). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding baseline care plans (includes the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident), dated June 12, 2024, indicated that the baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of a guest's admission, include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the guest including, but not limited to: initial goals based on admission orders, physician's orders, dietary orders, therapy orders, and social services. The admitting nurse or supervising nurse on duty shall gather information from the admission physical assessment, hospital transfer information, physician's orders, and discussion with the guest and the guest's representative. Interventions shall be initiated that address the guest's current needs. A nursing note for Resident 50,…
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 before2024-08-07 · 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 reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed for one of 16 residents reviewed (Resident 11). Findings include: An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 11, dated July 11, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, depended on assistance from staff for daily care needs, and received a diuretic (a medication that increases urine output). A care plan, dated July 5, 2024, indicated that the resident was to receive diuretic per physician's orders. Physician's orders for Resident 11, dated July 29, 2024, included an order for the resident to receive 2 milligrams (mg) of Bumex (a diuretic) every 24 hours as needed for edema (swelling), if the resident has a 2-pound weight increase in one day. A review of Resident 11's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for July and August 2024 revealed that the resident's weight on July 30 was 202 pounds, July 31 was 204 pounds, and August 1 was 216.8 pounds.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility's plans of correction for previous surveys, and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficient practices. Findings include: The facility's deficiencies and plans of correction for State Survey and Certification (Department of Health) survey ending September 7, 2023, revealed that the facility developed plans of correction that included quality assurance systems to ensure that the facility-maintained compliance with cited nursing home regulations. The results of the current survey, ending August 7, 2024, identified repeated deficiencies related to quality of care and sanitary food preparation and storage. The facility's plan of correction for a deficiency regarding quality of care, cited during the survey ending September 7, 2023, revealed that the facility developed a plan of correction that included completing audits 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 · E2023-09-07 · tag F0694 — patternProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that long-term intravenous catheters were flushed according to physician's orders for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 42). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding flushing intravenous catheters (a thin tube inserted into a vein and used long-term for the administration of fluids and/or medications), dated July 12, 2023, indicated that central venous access catheters would be flushed after each infusion to clear infused medications. The facility's policy regarding medication administration, dated July 12, 2023, revealed that medications were to be administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in the state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards. Staff were to sign the Medication Administration Record (MAR) after the medication was administered. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for…
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 · Ecited before2023-09-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 the review of the facility policies, as well as obervations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food stored in the walk-in freezer was properly dated and labeled. Findings include: The facility's policy for food storage, dated July 12, 2023, indicated that all products were to be labeled and dated with the receiving date. All open items will have an open date and will be resealed to prevent contamination. Observations of the dietary walk-in freezer on September 5, 2023, at 11:14 a.m. revealed undated and/or unlabeled items that were not in their original delivery box, including a bin of chicken breasts (8 cases -multiple breasts in separate clear plastic bags), beef brisket in a clear sealed bag, one angel food cake in a tied plastic bag, multiple single serving macaroni and cheese in a plastic bin, two packages of sandwich buns in a plastic bag, and a partial loaf of gluten-free bread. Interview with the Executive Chef on September 5, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. confirmed that all items should have been dated and/or labeled. 28 Pa. Code…
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 before2023-09-07 · 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 reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete wound treatments as ordered by the physician for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 17). Findings include: An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident 17, dated August 17, 2023, indicated that the resident was cognitively intact, required limited to extensive assistance for daily care tasks, and had a venous or arterial ulcer (ulcer caused by poor circulation). Physician's orders for Resident 17, dated August 15 and 29, 2023, included orders for the resident's right ankle to be cleansed with normal saline solution (sterile water), Opticell Ag (absorbent anti-bacterial dressing) applied, and covered with optifoam (foam dressing) three times a week. A care plan, dated August 14, 2023, indicated that wound care was to be provided as ordered. Review of Resident 17's Treatment Administration Records (TAR's) for August and September 2023 revealed that there was no documented evidence that the treatment to the resident's right ankle was completed three times a…
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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MANUFACTURERS AND TRADES TRUST COMPANY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 12/01/2018 |
| GEORGE, CAROLYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| GINGRICH, CHARLENE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| GIPE, RONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2015 |
| MACBRIDE, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| O'DONNELL, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| PETERSON, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| SCIAMANNA, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| TRINH, SUZANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| WARNER, PAULA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| WILLIAMS, ANTHONY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| YEAGER, WAYNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| BEINS, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/01/2015 |
| FRITZ, RYAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/01/2023 |
| MARTIN, TIFFANY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/01/2023 |
| NELSON, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/03/2006 |
| DIEHL, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/24/2022 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 396145. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-13, 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.