Stonebridge Health & Rehabilitation Center
102 Chandra Drive, Duncannon, PA 17020 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (717) 834-4111 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
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) | 3 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 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.4% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.7% | 10.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.0% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.9% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.9% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.6% | 68.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.6% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.8% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.04 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.26 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
36.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 86 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 38.3% 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 47 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 36.0%CMS range 27.6–45.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.5–14.4 | 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 | 38.3% | 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 | 38.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 25.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.8% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.2–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 60 beds and averages 57.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.69 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 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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 observations, clinical record review, review of facility documents, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 11). Findings Include: Review of Resident 11's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease- a progressive, inflammatory lung disease that blocks airflow and makes breathing difficult) and anxiety. During an interview with Resident 11 on June 8, 2026, at 10:34 AM, Resident 11 stated that she was missing her left hearing aid. Observation of Resident 11 at that time revealed she did not have a hearing aid in either ear. Review of facility's grievance log revealed a grievance filed by Resident 11, on January 6, 2026, stating that Resident 11 was missing her hearing aid. The grievance did not specify if it was the right or left hearing aid that was missing. The plan was for the facility to replace the hearing aid. Further review of the grievance form 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 · D2026-06-11 · 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 facility policy review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident right to receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation CPR Policy last reviewed March 16, 2026, read, in part, At admission, facility staff should confirm whether the resident has advance directives and identify the resident/legal representative's preferences regarding CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, an emergency procedure used to maintain blood flow and oxygen to vital organs when the heart stops beating). This review may occur as part of the admission assessment. If physician order(s) differ from the resident's wishes or there are no physician orders present: Promptly contact the provider for an appropriate order. Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that 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 · Dcited before2026-06-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide 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
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of two residents reviewed for limited range of motion (Resident 8).Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Restorative Nursing Referral Process & Policy last reviewed February 24, 2026, read, in part, Procedure: The referral form is filled out by the referring therapist and given to the Director of Rehab. Residents who could benefit from restorative programs (RNP) include but are not limited to: residents who are ready to finish a program of skilled rehabilitation therapy. Referral to restorative should be generic, not complicated, or should be reconsidered to stay on therapy. Review of Resident 8's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal right hip prosthesis (infection of artificial hip joint that can cause pain and swelling) and generalized…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-11 · 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 observations, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff implement transmission-based precautions to prevent the spread of infection for one of two residents (Resident 36) on transmission-based precautions.Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled Transmission-Based Precautions and Isolation Policy, revised April 15, 2026, revealed, Contact Precautions - intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or the patient's environment. Review of Resident 36's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included giardia (an infection of the small intestine) and urinary tract infection (UTI- is a bacterial infection in the urinary system [kidneys, bladder, or urethra]). Observation of Resident 36 on June 9, 2026, at 8:50 AM, revealed Resident 36 lying in her bed. Hanging on the wall outside of Resident 36's room was a sign indicating that Resident 36 was on contact precautions and that anyone entering the room was required…
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 before2025-07-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program related to the preparation and administration of medications for two of two residents observed; failed to ensure staff implemented infection control policies to prevent the spread of infection for one of 19 residents reviewed; and failed to maintain an accurate data collection system of infection surveillance from October 2024 through March 2025. Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled 6.0 General Dose Preparation and Medication Administration, last revised November 15, 2024, revealed it stated, 1.2 Medications should not come in contact with any surface except for the medication cup .2.3 Facility staff should avoid touching the medication with bare hands when opening a bottle or unit dose package . Review of facility policy, titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) Policy, revised May 19, 2025, revealed EBP are intended to prevent transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs)…
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 before2025-07-02 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection of a pressure ulcer for one of 16 residents reviewed (Resident 47). Findings include: Review of Resident 47's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease (a gradual loss of kidney function) and hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat in the blood). Review of Resident 47's clinical record revealed an active physician's order for prevalon boots on at all times every shift, with a start date of October 9, 2024. Observations of Resident 47 on June 30, 2025, at 12:15 PM and 2:16 PM, revealed the Resident was sitting in their wheelchair wearing sneakers instead of prevalon boots. Observation of Resident 47 on July 1, 2025, at 12:03 PM and 2:26 PM, revealed the Resident sitting in their wheelchair wearing sneakers instead of prevalon boots. Review of Resident 47's Medication Administration Record…
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 before2025-07-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide 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
Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of three residents reviewed for mobility (Resident 48). Findings Include: Review of Resident 48's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included stroke and elevated blood pressure. Review of Resident 48's current physician orders revealed an order, with a start date of October 15, 2024, for left hand splint, on at all times, may remove for care and to remove splint every shift to observe and monitor for skin breakdown. Review of Resident 48's current care plan revealed left hand splint on at all times, remove splint every shift and observe and monitor for skin breakdown, dated October 15, 2024. Observations of Resident 48 on June 30, 2025, at 10:14 AM, 12:37 PM, 1:39 PM, and on July 1, 2025, at 11:04 AM and 12:05 PM, revealed Resident 48's left hand splint was not in place. During an interview with Resident 48 on July 1,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide routine drugs and biologicals to its residents and provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for three of seven residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, and 3). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Delivery and Receipt of Routine Deliveries subsection Long-Term Care Facilities Receiving Products and Services from Pharmacy last revised August 1, 2024, read, in part, Receipt of Medications and Supplies: A facility nurse should inspect the package(s) for any damage or errors and notify pharmacy as soon as possible but within twenty-four hours of any damage or other discrepancies. If any item ordered by the facility is not received in the delivery, facility staff should check for a pharmacy slip explaining the reason 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing of a pressure ulcer for one of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident 6). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Clean Dressing Change Policy last revised, March 10, 2024, read, in part, Wounds will be dressed using a clean technique which avoids direct contamination of material and supplies. Apply new dressings as ordered. Document procedure and update findings. Review of Resident 6's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included pressure ulcer of right heel (wound that occurs when the skin and tissue are damaged by prolonged pressure) and osteoarthritis (a type of arthritis that affects the joints in your body). Review of Resident 6's physician orders revealed the following pressure wound order: Treatment as follows: Cleanse right heel with soap & water, pat dry. Apply betadine then calcium…
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 · D2025-04-03 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services necessary to maintain adequate personal grooming of residents dependent on staff for assistance with these activities of daily living for two of six residents reviewed (Residents 3 and 4). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy, titled Resident Bath/Showering/Scheduling Policy with a last revised date of September 9, 2022, revealed (A) Each resident will be asked about his/her bathing preferences upon admission (type of bath, preferred days and times), (H) If the bath/shower cannot be given or the resident refuses, the nursing assistant will promptly report this to the Charge Nurse, and (I) The Charge Nurse will speak with the resident who refuses to ascertain why they are refusing and to determine if alternate arrangement that suit the resident can be made. If the resident continues to refuse the Charge Nurse document the resident's refusal in the medical record. Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed diagnoses that 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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to include reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications in the resident's discharge summary for one of three closed records reviewed (Resident 55). Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled Discharge Planning Policy, revised September 24, 2020, revealed When a discharge is anticipated, [Facility] will develop a discharge summary/instructions that includes, but is not limited to, the following: .Reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications (both prescribed and over-the-counter.) Review of Resident 55's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (stroke - occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it) and anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness). Further review of Resident 55's clinical…
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 before2024-06-13 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide 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
Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of three residents reviewed for mobility (Resident 22). Findings Include: Review of Resident 22's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included hypertension (elevated blood pressure), congestive heart failure (CHF- a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During an interview with Resident 22 on June 10, 2024, at 10:38 AM, she stated that she wants to walk at least once a day, but stated that staff don't always assist her in doing so. During the resident group interview on June 11, 2024, at 11:00 AM, Resident 22 again expressed concern with her walking program and not being assisted with walking every day. Review of Resident 22's facility form, titled Restorative Ambulation Program Referral, dated…
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 before2024-06-13 · 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 facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of 21 residents on transmission-based precautions (Residents 46). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Transmission-Based Precautions Isolation Policy, revised April 15, 2024, read, in part, contact precautions also apply where there is urinary incontinence or other discharges from the body suggest an increased potential for environmental contamination and risk of transmission. Personal Protective Equipment (gloves, gown, face mask, face shield) recommended: gloves whenever touching the resident's intact skin or surfaces and articles in close proximity to the resident. Gowns whenever anticipating that clothing will have direct contact with the resident or potentially contaminated environmental surfaces. Review of Resident 46's revealed diagnoses…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.9 | +2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| CARROLL, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/25/2024 |
| CLINE, ERIC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/25/2022 |
| PEARLSTEIN, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/10/2022 |
| BENJAMIN N. VOLPE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST (DATED DECEMBER 29, 2020) | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/04/2023 |
| BNV DYNASTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| RKL LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/26/2023 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| SHG REZ LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/06/2025 |
| STONEBRIDGE RE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/02/2022 |
| WIW DYNASTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395785. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-11, 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.