Pennsylvania Soldiers And Sailors Home
560 East Third St, Erie, PA 16512 · Government - State · 107 certified beds · (814) 871-4531 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 | 16.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.2% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 10.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.6% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.6% | 20.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.4% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.8% | 17.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.07 | 1.62 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.18 | 1.80 | typical |
§ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 107 beds and averages 98.3 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.46 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.37 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.17 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.69 to 0.88 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
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-13 · tag F0628 — patternProvide 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 review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that the necessary resident information was communicated to the receiving health care provider upon transfer to the hospital for three of three residents reviewed (Residents R1, R5, and R9).Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Transfers and Discharge dated 2/2/26, revealed For a transfer/discharge to another provider, for any reason, the following information must be provided to the receiving provider:Contact information of the practitioner who was responsible for the care of the resident,Resident representative information.Advance directive information.All other information necessary to meet the residents needs, which includes, but may not be limited to:Resident status, including baseline and current mental, behavioral, and functional status, reason for transfer, recent vital signs.Diagnoses and allergies.Medications (including last received); andMost recent relevant labs, other diagnostic tests, and recent immunizations.All special…
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 · D2026-03-13 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide evidence that non-pharmacological interventions (interventions attempted to calm a resident other than medication) were attempted prior to the administration of an as needed (PRN) psychotropic (mind altering) medication for one of five residents reviewed (Resident R100).Review of facility policy entitled Psychotropic Medication Use & GDR Process dated 2/2/26, indicated Residents who use psychotropic medications shall also receive non-pharmacological interventions to facilitate reduction or discontinuation of the psychotropic drugs. And non-pharmacological interventions will be utilized and documented in the EMAR [electronic medication administration record]. Review of Resident R100's clinical record revealed an admission date of 4/18/25, with diagnoses that included dementia (a disease that affects short term memory and the ability to think logically), anxiety (a condition that causes a person to be nervous, uneasy, or worried about something or someone),…
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 · D2026-03-13 · 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 review of facility policy and clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure adequate safety measures were implemented per physician's orders by not attaching leg rests (supportive device attached to a wheelchair for the feet to rest upon) to the wheelchair during transport for four residents reviewed (Residents R45, R73, R75, and R101).Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Medical Provider Orders dated 2/2/26, revealed .the written physician orders are to provide the essential care needs to the resident, consistent with their mental and physical status.physician orders are administered and carried out in accordance with the written or verbal orders of the attending medical provider. Review of Resident R45's clinical record revealed an admission date of 10/3/25, with diagnoses that included muscle spasm, hypothyroidism (a condition where the thyroid gland does not produce enough hormones causing a slow metabolism), and pain.Review of Resident R45's clinical record revealed a physician's order for B…
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 · D2026-03-13 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure recommendations made from the consultant pharmacist were acted upon for one of five residents reviewed (Resident R66).Review of facility policy entitled Medication Regimen Review [MRR] dated 2/2/26, indicated The MRR includes review of the medical record in order to prevent, identify, report, and resolve medication-related problems, medication errors, or other irregularities., The pharmacist shall communicate any irregularities to the facility., The facility shall provide the licensed pharmacist. answers to the previous month's pharmacy recommendations. and Facility staff shall act upon all recommendations. Review of Resident R66's clinical record revealed an admission date of 9/29/25, with diagnoses that included diabetes (a health condition that is caused by the body's inability to produce enough insulin), Parkinson's (a chronic and progressive movement disorder that causes shaking, slows a person's ability to move and worsens over time), and anxiety (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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide oxygen according to physician's orders and failed to promote cleanliness and help prevent the spread of infection for three of five residents reviewed regarding respiratory care equipment (Residents R6, R30, and R38). Findings include: A facility policy dated 3/3/25, entitled Supplemental Oxygen Therapy revealed Turn the Flow Meter to the prescribed setting. DO NOT select a different setting unless the Provider has prescribed a change and The Nursing staff shall be responsible to clean filters (located at the back / side of the concentrators), wipe down machine, change all tubing, distilled water canisters (if applicable) and bags weekly. Resident R6's clinical record revealed an admission date of 6/5/15, with diagnoses that included Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - when your lungs do not have adequate air flow), high blood pressure, and anxiety (a condition that causes a person to be nervous, uneasy, or worried about…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a PRN (as needed) anti-anxiety psychotropic (any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) medication had clinical rationale identified for the use beyond the limitation of 14 days for one of 23 residents reviewed (Resident R4). Findings include: A facility policy entitled Resident Care/Pharmacy Services dated 3/2023, revealed that PRN orders for psychotropic medications (antipsychotic, anxiolytic, antidepressant and sedative/hypnotic) will be limited to 14 days unless the physician identifies the rationale to extend the medication beyond 14 days. Resident R4's clinical record revealed an admission date of 4/28/18, with diagnoses that included dementia (a disease of the brain that affects decision making, memory, mood and behavior), aneurysm of iliac artery (a bulge or dilation in the wall of the iliac arteries, located in the pelvis), benign neoplasm of colon (a non-cancerous growth that originated in…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with standards for food safety in a resident pantry in one of two refrigerators reviewed (Unit A pantry). Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Resident Rights; Visitation dated 3/3/25, indicated Perishable food . brought in will be permitted to be placed in the unit refrigerator for 24 hours. The food must be labeled with resident's name date and time. Perishable items not of a leftover nature, may be placed in the unit refrigerator/freezer up through package expiration date. Observations on 3/5/25, at 11:40 a.m. of a refrigerator in the Unit A pantry used for residents revealed three zip lock bags containing snap peas, two of the zip lock bags had a date of 1/21/25, and the third zip lock bag lacked a date. Observation of one of the zip lock bags revealed the snap peas were soft and there was a liquid substance in the bottom of the zip lock bag. Further observations revealed a plastic container of blackberries…
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 · D2025-03-07 · 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 and infection control records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure measures were in place to monitor and prevent legionella in the facility water. Findings include: A facility policy entitled, Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Legionella Disease, dated 3/03/25, revealed The State Veterans' Homes must 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. Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Legionella (L. pneumophila) Disease - If environmental testing detects L. pneumophila then the environmental actions in this sub-paragraph are required. Any amount of L. pneumophila detected in a sample is considered a positive result. Implement remedial action using the criteria below. This remedial action approach uses a graded response for addressing L. pneumophila-positive samples detected through routine water testing. After environmental…
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 · D2024-04-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, facility documentation and clinical record, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of 22 residents reviewed was free of neglect during care. (Resident R11) Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Administrative Services dated 3/2/24, revealed Neglect: The failure of the home, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Review of facility policy entitled Clinical Care dated 3/2/24, revealed Basic Elements of Lift, Gait Belts, and Slider Boards Use, 1.maintains a no manual body lift directive to minimize risk of injury to the resident . Review of Resident R11's clinical record revealed an admission date of 7/2/19, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (brain disorder that slowly destroys memory, thinking skills, and, over time the ability to carry out the simplest tasks),…
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 · D2024-04-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to review and/or revise resident care plans for two of 22 residents reviewed (Residents R27 and R57). Findings include: Review of a facility policy dated 3/2/24, entitled Comprehensive Care Plans (Nursing Care) indicated that the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set - federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) assessment. Resident R27's clinical record revealed an admission date of 5/9/14, with diagnoses that included paraplegia (injury to your spinal cord or brain causes paralysis to your lower body), high blood pressure, and diabetes (condition of improper insulin/blood sugar levels). Review of Resident R27's comprehensive care plan with a problem category of Pressure Ulcer / Injury revealed an outstanding target date (a date that the resident's care plan must be updated by) of 3/14/24. Resident R57's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in PA
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 39A434. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-13, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.