Rehab & Nursing Ctr Greater Pittsburgh
890 Weatherwood Lane, Greensburg, PA 15601 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (724) 837-8076 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 5 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,159 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-15)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 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 fell from 4 to 2 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 | 9.3% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.7% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 69.9% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.7% | 20.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.5% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.6% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.8% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.2% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.9% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.7% | 9.5% | 12.0% | worse |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
50.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 342 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.0% 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 141 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 0.77 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 50.9%CMS range 45.4–56.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.2%CMS range 11.5–17.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse 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 discharge | 78.0% | 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 | 61.7% | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 95.2% | 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 | 96.9% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.5% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 4.4–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 120 beds and averages 111.6 residents a day — about 93% 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 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.08 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.92 to 0.49 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 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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-28 · 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, clinical records, documentation provided by the facility, facility investigation, resident interview, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from neglect by failing to provide adequate assistance and interventions to prevent fall with injury, which resulted in actual harm of a scalp laceration, brain bleed and hospital admission to reverse anticoagulation for one of three residents (Resident R1). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation Prevention Program last reviewed on 1/16/26, indicated that the residents of the facility have a right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of property. The facility will develop and implement policies to prevent and identify such concerns.Review of the facility policy Identifying Neglect last reviewed on 1/16/26, indicated that neglect is the failure of the facility to provide goods and services to a resident that…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision and assistance for bed mobility to prevent accidents which resulted in actual harm of a head bleed for one of three residents (Resident R1).Findings Include: Review of facility Falls and Fall Risk, Managing policy dated 1/15/26, indicated that based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. Review of the admission record indicated that Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses of muscle weakness, spinal stenosis, and depression. Review of Resident R1's physician order dated 7/12/25, indicated to administer 2.5 milligram (mg) Eliquis (blood thinning medication), one tablet, by mouth, two times a day. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-22 · 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, clinical records, documentation provided by the facility, facility investigation, resident interview, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from neglect by failing to provide adequate assistance and interventions to prevent fall with injury, which resulted in actual harm as evidenced by a subarachnoid hemorrhage, six staples to the left side of the scalp, and a C4 (fourth cervical vertebra) fracture which required use of a cervical collar to be worn at all times for one of three residents (Resident R1). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation Prevention Program last reviewed on 1/16/25, indicated that the residents of the facility have a right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of property. The facility will develop and implement policies to prevent and identify such concerns. Review of the facility policy Identifying Neglect last reviewed on…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate assistance and interventions to prevent fall with injury, that resulted in actual harm causing a subarachnoid hemorrhage, six sutures to the scalp, and a C4 (fourth cervical vertebrae) fracture for one of three residents (Resident R1) Findings include: Review of the facility policy Safe Patient/Resident Handling Policy and Procedure, last reviewed on 1/16/25, indicated that staff are trained to utilize safe resident handling equipment and moving techniques to decrease the number of injuries to them and to the residents. The requirements include avoiding unassisted handling of residents and/or identifying potential high risk residents to avoid potential injuries. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included anemia, gastrointestinal bleed, diabetes, a stroke,…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-08-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on reviews of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement effective safety measures by not supervising use of a cold pack in a manner that promotes safety for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R1), which resulted in actual harm of a superficial frostbite burn (involving the epidermis and dermis layers of the skin that is red blistered swollen and painful). This was identified as harm for one resident (Resident R1). Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Ice/Cold Pack, last reviewed 1/18/24, indicated the facility will provide appropriate toweling between ice pack and area to be treated. The treatment time is 10-20 minutes and should be checked every 10 minutes. The treatment and response to treatment should be documented in medical record. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included sciatica (pain along sciatic…
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 before2026-03-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical and facility record review, facility submitted documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement for one of nine residents (Resident R1). This was identified as past non-compliance.Findings include:Review of the facility policy Safety and Supervision of Residents dated 1/15/26, indicated the facility will provide a safe environment for all residents.Review of the clinical record revealed Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 1/3/26, included diagnoses of dementia (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life, cause by physical changes in the brain) and a psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of an Elopement Risk Evaluation completed on 5/25/24, indicated Resident R1 was at risk for elopement.Review of Resident R1's plan of care for Risk for Elopement initiated…
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 · F2025-11-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — 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 properly store food products in the walk-in cooler and freezer which created the potential for cross contamination (Main Kitchen). Findings include: Review of facility policy Food Receiving and Storage dated 1/16/25, indicated foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer are covered, labeled and dated. Refrigerated foods are stored in a way which allows for adequate air circulation around food containers. During an observation of the main kitchen on 11/24/25, at 9:50 a.m., the following was observed: Walk in cooler:-one jar of grape jelly was opened undated. Freezer - boxes of multiple types of food items stored to ceiling on top shelves of whole freezer and under fans. During an interview on 11/24/25, at 10:00 a.m., Dietary Manager Employee E1 confirmed that the facility failed to properly store food products and maintain sanitary conditions which created the potential…
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 · E2025-11-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess, document, and notify physicians of decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels for three of seven residents reviewed (Residents R6, R86, and R100).Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control define diabetes as: Diabetes Mellitus is a chronic (long-lasting) health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy. Most of the food you eat is broken down into sugar (also called glucose) and released into your bloodstream. When your blood sugar goes up, it signals your pancreas to release insulin. Insulin acts like a key to let the blood sugar into your body's cells for use as energy. If you have diabetes, your body either doesn't make enough insulin or can't use the insulin it makes as well as it should. When there isn't enough insulin or cells stop responding to insulin, too much blood sugar stays in your bloodstream. Over time, that can cause serious health…
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 · E2025-11-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care and maintain oxygen equipment for four of five sampled residents (Residents R1, R2, R53, and R98).Findings include: Review of the facility policy Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection last reviewed on 1/16/25, indicated that considerations related to oxygen administration include change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven days or as needed. Keep the oxygen and tubing used as needed in a plastic bag when not in use. Considerations related to medication nebulizers/continuous aerosol include store the circuit in a plastic bag, marked with date and resident's name, between uses. Discard the administration set up every seven days. Review of Resident R1's admission record indicated she was originally admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 10/1/25,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-26 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make accessible grievance boxes to residents in three of three locations, 300-lounge, main dining room, and front lobby. Findings include: A review of the facility policy Grievances/Complaints, Filing reviewed 1/16/25, grievances and/or complaints may be submitted orally or in writing and may be filed anonymously. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) does not specify exact height requirements for grievance boxes in skilled nursing facilities. However, CMS mandates that grievance procedures be accessible to all residents, including those with disabilities, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Pennsylvania, the Department of Health incorporates by reference the federal requirements outlined in 42 CFR Part 483, Subpart B, which pertains to long-term care facilities. These regulations emphasize the importance of accessibility but do not provide additional specifications regarding grievance box placement. To ensure…
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 before2025-11-26 · 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 staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident from neglect and verbal abuse for one of three residents (Resident R114). Findings include:Review of facility policy Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program dated 1/16/25, indicated residents have a right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, effective October 2024, indicated that a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) is a screening test that aides in detecting cognitive impairment. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R114 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R114's Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 9/24/25, indicated diagnoses of kidney disease, Chron's disease and diabetes. Question C0500 BIMS Summary Score indicated the resident scored a 15,…
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 · D2025-11-26 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of facility policy, information provided by the facility, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to promptly conduct a thorough investigation to rule out abuse and implement corrective action and submit the results of the completed investigation to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident as evidenced by one of three residents reviewed (Resident R114).Findings include:Review of facility policy Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program dated 1/16/25, indicated residents have a right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. The policy indicated that the facility will identify and investigate all possible incidents of abuse, neglect, mistreatment or misappropriation of resident property within times frames required by federal requirements.Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, effective October 2024, indicated that a Brief Interview for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-10 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (written instructions such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for four of the nine residents reviewed (Resident R24, R29, R57, R71). Findings Include: A review of the facility policy Advanced Directives last reviewed 1/18/24, indicated the facility will comply with the requirements related to maintaining written policies and procedures regarding advance directives, including provisions to inform and provide written information to all adult residents concerning the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and formulate an advance directive. A review of the medical record indicated Resident R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included type II diabetes (long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood…
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 before2024-12-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly secure medication in one of two medication carts on the 300 hall nursing unit (B cart). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Medication Labeling and Storage last reviewed on 1/18/24, indicated the facility stores medications in locked compartments and only authorized have access to the keys. During an observation on 12/8/24, at 12:10 p.m., the 300 hall B medication cart was left unsecured and unattended and accessible to any passerby. During an interview on 12/8/24, at 12:15 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed the facility failed to properly secure medications on one of two medication carts on the 300 hall nursing unit accessible to any passerby. 28 Pa. Code: 211.9(a)(1)(k) Pharmacy services. 28 Pa. Code: 211.10(c) Resident care policies. 28 Pa. Code: 211.12(d)(1)(2)(5) Nursing services.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of manufacturer guidelines, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medications were properly stored in two of two medication carts (200 B and 200 A). Findings include: Review of the Humalog lispro insulin (injectable medication used to treat high blood sugar) prescribing information revised 02/2020, indicated that for Humalog injection pens Do not use your pen past the expiration date printed on the label or for more than 28 days after you first start using the pen. For Humalog vials of insulin Do not use Insulin Lispro Injection past the expiration date printed on the label or 28 days after you first use it. During an observation of the 200 B medication cart on 11/17/23, at 11:17 a.m. a partially used flex-pen of Humalog was observed, without an open date. During an interview on 11/17/23, at 11:18 a.m. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employee E1 confirmed the above observation. During an observation of the 200 A medication cart on 11/17/23, at 11:21 a.m. two partially used vials of Humalog were observed,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-11-26 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that current and accurate nurse staffing information was posted in the facility at the beginning of each shift. Findings include: Observation conducted on 11/24/25, at approximately 9:00 a.m., revealed that nurse staffing information was posted in the main lobby on the reception desk. At that time, the nurse staffing information had the date of (11/7/25), resident census, and the staffing hours did not accurately reflect the current total number of hours worked for licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift for the current date. During an interview on 11/24/25, at 9:05 a.m., Employee E2 receptionist stated that the posting for staffing isn't up to date. During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 11/24/25, at approximately 9:50 a.m., the NHA confirmed the facility failed to post the required current facility information for staffing hours and the census for 11/24/25. 201.18(b)(3) Management.
- No harm found · B2025-11-26 · tag F0575 — patternPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and a staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to post contact information, Adult Protective Services (APS), Medicaid Fraud Unit, and a statement the resident may file a complaint with the State Agency as required, in the building. Findings include: The facility must post, in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents, resident representatives; a list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups, such as the State Survey Agency, the State licensure office, adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities, the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program, the protection and advocacy network, home and community based service programs, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. Observations conducted on 11/25/25, at approximately 11:30 a.m., on the nursing units, revealed the facility did not have the required elements (agency name, address, email address, and phone number) of Adult Protective Services (APS),…
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
$8,159 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,159 — penalty dated 2024-08-15
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CAREONE — 37 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THCI COMPANY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2002 |
| CARE REALTY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2002 |
| DES-I 2016 GRAT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2021 |
| THCI HOLDING COMPANY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2002 |
| STRAUS, DANIEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2006 |
| BARUCH, DAVID | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| HEALTHBRIDGE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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 $3.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
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 395851. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-26, 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.