No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Pine Run Health Center

777 Ferry Road, Doylestown, PA 18901 · Non profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (215) 340-5200 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (215) 340-5200 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 14 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
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

Urgent care / clinic
65 E Butler Ave Ste 101 · (215) 348-9549 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
595 W State St Ste 100 · (215) 348-1503 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
4377 W Swamp Rd · (267) 885-0920 · Call to confirm hours
Park
(215) 348-6114 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased23.0%16.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.5%6.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.6%1.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.7%10.8%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.1%3.1%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened29.2%17.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication26.9%20.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.2%93.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.7%4.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control33.2%25.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.2%17.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.4%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine88.9%68.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.0%22.5%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.0%9.5%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.751.621.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.911.181.80typical

§ 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.

61.2% 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 599 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

61.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
13.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
60.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.75U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.31hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.36hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 60.2% 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 221 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 0.75 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF61.2%CMS range 57.4–65.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF13.9%CMS range 11.2–16.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge60.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge63.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge54.3%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting94.8%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.3%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened7.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.8%CMS range 5.0–8.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.741.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.91
RN hours/ resident / day
1.11
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.07
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.10
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.64
RN hoursweekends
34.8%
Total nursing turnover
36.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 81.5 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.10 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.24 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.02 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% 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

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-12)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-10)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food and maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department and in two of three country kitchens. (Second and Third floors) Findings include:Observations during the tour of the dietary department and in the country kitchen on the second floor on March 10, 2026, at 10:25 a.m., revealed the following:In the Emergency Food Storage section, there was one box of six large cans of green beans that was expired on December 25, 2025, nine cans of corned beef that were labeled with a use by date of July 1, 2025, four large boxes of oatmeal that were labeled with a use by date of September 8, 2025, four large boxes of apple juice dated use by date of December 9, 2025, two large boxes of cranberry juice that were labeled with a use by date of October 16, 2025, six large cans of tomatoes labeled with a use by date of June 17, 2025, and six large cans of fruit cocktail that were noted to be expired on May 28, 2025.In the country kitchen on the second floor, there was 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, group interview, resident interviews, and review of electronic call bell logs, it was determined that the facility failed to answer call bells in a timely manner to provide care and services respectful of each resident's dignity and preferences to promote the quality of life for six of 18 sampled residents. (Residents 3, 6, 56, 68, 83, 96)Findings include:Review of the facility policy entitled Call Bell Response, dated January 5, 2026, revealed that all nursing personnel must be aware of call lights/alerts at all times, and answer bell/alert promptly. During an interview on March 11, 2026, at 1:17 p.m., the Administrator stated that staff were expected to respond to call bells in less than 20 minutes. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease and recovery from recent digestive system surgery. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was able to communicate his needs to staff 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for six of 21 sampled residents. (Residents 3, 11, 29, 37, 42, and 56) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included hypotension (low blood pressure) and chronic kidney disease. A physician's order dated February 26, 2026, directed staff to administer 5 milligrams (mg) of a blood pressure medication (midodrine) two times daily. The physician ordered that staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was higher than 130 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). Review of Resident 3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February and March 2026, revealed that the staff withheld the medication once in February, when Resident 2's blood pressure was below 130mm/Hg and administered midodrine once in March, when Resident's 3's SBP was higher than 130 mm/Hg. Clinical record review…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services to improve or maintain walking mobility on a consistent basis for one of 21 sampled residents. (Resident 4) Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 4 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, generalized muscle weakness, and difficulty in walking. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired and required limited assistance from staff for activities of daily living. On February 10, 2026, the physical therapist had recommended a Restorative Nursing Program (RNP) for walking with a rolling walker for ambulation up to 200 feet. In an interview on March 12, 2026, at 12:37 p.m., the Director of Therapy stated the program consisted of Resident 4 using a front wheeled walker to go to and from the dining room for each meal and that it was to maintain his mobility status. There was a lack of documentation to…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy it was determined that the facility failed to store respiratory equipment appropriately for one of three sampled residents who received oxygen therapy. (Resident 42) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Oxygen Protocol, dated January 5, 2026, revealed that oxygen cannulas and masks were to be changed weekly and labeled with the date. When oxygen tubing was not in use it was to be kept in a plastic bag. Staff were to place a new bag with the resident's name and date on the side of the concentrator or portable oxygen tank weekly to hold the tubing. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 42 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure. On September 5, 2025, the physician ordered that staff administer oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (a tube with two prongs where each prong is inserted into each nostril of the nose) at a rate of two liters per minute at bedtime. On September 5, 2025, the physician ordered for staff to…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician acknowledged the pharmacist's recommendations for two of 21 sampled residents. (Residents 9 and 37)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that on September 14, 2025, the consultant pharmacist made a recommendation to review and assess the orders for Resident 9's Celexa and Remeron. On November 17, 2025, the consultant pharmacist made a recommendation to evaluate and adjust the dose of Tylenol. There was no documented evidence that the attending physician had acknowledged or acted upon these recommendations. Clinical record review revealed that on December 24, 2025, the consultant pharmacist made recommendations to evaluate Resident 37's seroquel for a dose reduction and to consider adding a stimulant laxative such as Senna to this resident's regiment to prevent constipation. On January 13, 2026, the consultant pharmacist again made recommendations to evaluate Resident 37's seroquel. There was no documented evidence that the attending physician had…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-02 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, policy review, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a licensed practical nurse (LPN) maintained professional standards of quality care in following the established policies and procedures of the facility set forth in the Pennsylvania Code Title 49 Professional and Vocational standards for one of three sampled residents who were at risk for falls. (Resident 1)Findings include: Review of Pennsylvania Code Title 49, Chapter 21, Subchapter B. Practical Nurses, revealed guidelines which included that an LPN shall follow the written, established policies and procedures of the facility. Review of the facility policy entitled, Falls Management Program, last reviewed January 2025, revealed that when a resident sustained a fall, an examination by a licensed nurse was completed and a Registered Nurse (RN) must assess the resident post fall and document on the accident/incident report.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included orthostatic hypotension,…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 clinical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to safely administer medications for one of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 2)Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Medications, Administration (Self), last reviewed January 2025, revealed that a written physician's order for self-administration of medications and bedside storage was obtained and kept in the resident's medical record.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included muscle wasting, dysphagia, need for assistance with personal care, and hearing loss. Review of the resident's self-administration of medications assessment dated [DATE], revealed that she required assistance storing medications in a secured location, administering oral medications, naming medications and prescribed use, and she was not approved to self- administer her own medications. On November 10, 2025, at 11:10 a.m., Resident 2 was observed in her…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on facility policy review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow policies and procedures to prevent the spread of infection on the nursing unit. (Fourth floor) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Hand Hygiene, last reviewed January 2025, revealed that staff was to sanitize or wash their hands before and after each procedure or task and after handling resident belongings. On November 10, 2025, at 11:50 a.m., nurse aide (NA) 2 was observed exiting Resident 3's room carrying linens with ungloved bare hands. NA 2 disposed of the linens into the dirty linen receptacle. NA 2 did not perform hand hygiene after this task and proceeded to enter Resident 4's room without performing hand hygiene. NA 2 touched Resident 4's belongings, obtained clean linens from the clean linen cart, re-entered then exited Resident 4's room again, and did not perform hand hygiene at any time during the observation.28 Pa. Code 211.10(b)(d) Resident care policies. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on March 19, 2024, at 11:50 a.m. revealed the following: The bottom row of shelves in the reach-in freezer were missing. Multiple food items were stored on the bottom floor of the freezer. There was a box of raw chicken cheesesteak meat that was open, other food items were stored on top of the box. There was an open bag of French fries that was not dated. The slicer handle was broken. There was a muffin tin and round cake pan stored on top of a transformer. There were two muffin tins on the floor between the storage shelf and the transformer. There was water leaking from the nozzle of a hose behind the kettle while food was being cooked. There was an accumulation of debris under the stovetop and grille. There was cocktail sauce with a use-by date of March 15, 2024, and blue cheese dressing with a use-by date of March 16, 2024, in the walk-in refrigerator. There was a container of popcorn with a use-by date of January…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dignity was maintained for two of 18 sampled residents. (Residents 45, 222) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 45 had diagnoses that included stroke, hemiplegia to the left side, depression, and muscle weakness. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident preferred activities that identified with his prior lifestyle and staff were to include the resident's preferences in rendering care and services. On March 19, 2024, at 1:33 p.m., Resident 45 was observed in bed. The white board on the wall in his room displayed March 11, 2024, and identified an assigned nurse and nurse aide for that date. During the observation, the resident stated that he preferred the white board to be updated daily with accurate and current information and he does not recall the last time staff updated the board. Observations on March 20, 2024, at 11:52 a.m., and March 21, 2024, at 11:20 a.m., revealed that the resident's white board still displayed March 11, 2024, with…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 18 sampled residents. (Resident 15) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 15 had diagnoses that included pleural effusion, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and lymphedema. Review of the care plan revealed that Resident 15 was at risk for dehydration and weight changes and staff were to monitor weights and report changes to the physician. On November 17, 2023, the physician ordered for the resident to be weighed daily. There was no evidence that weights were obtained on March 4, 7, 9, and 17, 2024. On January 19, 2024, there was an order for staff to notify the physician of a two pound (lb.) weight gain or loss in one day or a five lb. weight change in one week. Review of the resident's weight record revealed that she experienced weight changes of greater than two pounds in one day on the following dates: A loss of 3.6 lbs. from January 31, 2024, through February 1, 2024. A gain of 3.6 lbs. from…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2026-03-12 · tag F0628 — widespread
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative of their appeal rights and the contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman in writing upon transfer from the facility for six of six sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 was transferred to the hospital on January 28, 2026, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident, the resident's responsible party, or the legal representative was provided information regarding appeal rights and contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman upon transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 was transferred to the hospital on January 13, 2026, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident, the resident's responsible party, or the legal representative was provided information…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2024-03-22 · tag F0623 — pattern
    Provide 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of transfer(s) in writing upon transfer from the facility for two of two sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 2, 23) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documentation to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 23 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documentation to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the transfer to the hospital. In an interview on March 22, 2024, at 10:36 a.m., 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PRESBYTERIAN SENIOR LIVING — 11 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.6-0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.2-0.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 53.5-0.5 vs chain
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
PHIOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 04/10/2023
PINE RUN VILLAGE, INCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 01/01/2025
BOWSER, NICOLEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2024
BIRDSALL, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
BREXLER, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
CHOTTINER, LAWRENCEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
DAVIS, DANNYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/10/2023
DENISON, BARBARAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
DERR, SCOTTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
ELLIOTT, BRENDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
GERGITS, CHARLESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 08/24/2023
GOLDSTEIN, TERRYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
KELLY, SHARONIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
KINARD, JOSEPHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
LEVY, SCOTTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
MCALISTER, DYANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/10/2023
REIMANN, SUSANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
RHODES, CHERYLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
SCOTT, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
SEIBERT, JOSEPHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
SHROPSHIRE, JENNIFERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
STONE, ROBYNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
DAVIS, TODDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2024
HERSHEY, KATHERINEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2025
KRIEGER, DANIELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
WICKLINE, BEVERLYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
BULLIVANT, NANCYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/16/2024
KATZ, PAULIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 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.

$15.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-2.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.4M
Related-party expense15% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 18%Medicare 22%Other / private 60%

This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

$1,520per resident / day
operating cost
$46,208per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$1,485per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Pennsylvania
$11,954/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,688/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,480/mo
Assisted living

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 395366. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-12, 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.

What to do next