Quality Life Services - Grove City
400 Hillcrest Avenue, Grove City, PA 16127 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 109 certified beds · (724) 458-9501 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 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 | 6.1% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.6% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 12.7% | 10.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.7% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.2% | 20.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.7% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.7% | 17.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.5% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 70.2% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.2% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.4% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.22 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.41 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.7% 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 80 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.5% 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 26 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 65% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 55.7%CMS range 44.6–65.3 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 7.4–16.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 61.5% | 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 | 57.7% | 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 | 84.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.4–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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 109 beds and averages 93.7 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 15 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.26 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-08-18 · 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
Based on review of clinical records, and facility documents, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident received the required mobility assistance using assistive devices to prevent accidents that resulted in actual harm of the right lower leg for one of eight residents reviewed (Closed Record Resident CR2). This deficiency is being cited as past non-compliance. Findings include: Review of Resident CR2's clinical record revealed an admission date of 7/26/23, with diagnoses that included broken left lower leg, lack of coordination, abnormal gait and mobility, falls, and muscle wasting. Review of hospital discharge records dated 7/24/23, included a Closed fracture of left fibula (lower leg) assessment and plan indicated, Patient is partial weight bearing due to distal fibula/ankle fracture. Patient with assistance of caregiver can pivot between bed to chair, wheelchair, and commode with Sit-to-Stand or patient would be confined without the use of a Sit-to-Stand. Review of physician's orders revealed the following orders for Resident CR2:…
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 · D2026-05-15 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to comprehensively assess pressure ulcers/injuries (injury to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings include: Facility policy Skin Integrity and Wound Management dated 6/20/25, revealed the implementation of an individual resident's skin integrity and wound management occurs within the care delivery process. Staff continually observes and monitors residents for changes and implements revisions to the plan of care as needed. Complete comprehensive assessment of the resident's needs prior to admission. Identify resident's skin integrity status and need for prevention intervention or treatment modalities through review of all appropriate assessment information. Perform skin inspection on admission and weekly by a licensed nurse. Document in PCC[ computer program]. Perform wound assessment and complete proper forms upon initial identification of altered skin integrity weekly,…
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 · Fcited before2025-11-18 · 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 upon review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor sanitization chemicals for one of one three-compartment sinks; failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with standards for food safety for four of four kitchen refrigerators, one of one solarium refrigerators, and one of one kitchen freezers; and failed to label food brought into the facility with the resident's name and use by date in one of five refrigerators.Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Cleaning Dishes - Manual Dishwashing, dated 6/18/25, revealed the facility will check the sanitation sink often using a test strip to assure the level of sanitization solution is appropriate and that the facility will test the sanitizing solution in the sink using the manufacturer's suggested test strips to assure appropriate level. Review of facility policy entitled Food Storage, dated 6/18/25, revealed Refrigeration temperatures should be thermostatically controlled to maintain food temperatures at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F)…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 and 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 a PRN (as needed) psychotropic (affecting the mind) medication for one of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident R10).Findings include:Facility policy entitled Behavior Standard dated 6/18/25, revealed that the facility will identify, address and eliminate or reduce underlying cause of distressed behaviors and will develop interventions that are specific to the resident's interest, abilities, strengths, and needs. Resident R10's clinical record revealed an admission date of 8/22/25, with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure (CHF - a long-term condition that happens when your heart can't pump blood well enough to give your body a normal supply causing blood and fluids collect in your lungs and legs over time), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD 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 · D2025-11-18 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide 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 policies, and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the Resident and/or resident representative with a written notice of the facility bed-hold policy (explanation of how long a bed can be held during a leave of absence and the cost per day) and failed to make certain that the necessary resident information was communicated to the receiving health care provider upon transfer to the hospital for two of four residents reviewed for hospitalization (Residents R5 and R11). Findings include: Facility policy entitled Notice of Bed Hold Policy at Time of Transfer Due to Hospitalization or Therapeutic Leave dated 6/18/25, revealed policy is provided to residents at the time of transfer of a resident for hospitalizations or therapeutic leave. Facility policy entitled Transfer of Resident To Another Care Community dated 6/18/25, revealed to promote continuity of care during transfer the facility will copy / prepare documents needed for transfer, including, but not limited to face sheet, advanced directive,…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to appropriately date and discard outdated medications for one of two medication rooms reviewed (third floor medication storage room). Findings include: Review of a facility policy entitled Storage of Medications dated 6/18/25, indicated that when the original seal of the manufacturer's vial is initially broken, the vial will be dated. The nurse will place a date opened sticker on the medication and enter the date opened and the new date of expiration. The expiration date of the vial will be 30 days unless the manufacturer recommends another date. Review of manufacturer's guidelines revealed that an open vial of Tubersol (a solution used for tuberculosis testing upon admission and employment) should be discarded within 30 days after opening. Observation of drug storage on 9/24/25, at approximately 3:26 p.m. of the third floor medication storage room refrigerator revealed one open vial of Tubersol with no date indicating when the vial was opened. During an interview at…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 a review of facility policy and infection control guidelines, clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow acceptable infection control practices regarding Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) during observation of a resident with COVID-19 for one of three residents reviewed for TBP (Resident R64).Findings include: Facility policy entitled Droplet Precautions with a policy review date of 6/18/25, indicated, droplet precautions should be used in addition to standard precautions for residents with infections that can be transmitted by droplets. Droplet transmission involves contact with the conjunctiva or mucus membranes of the nose or mouth of a susceptible person with large particle droplets containing microorganisms generated from a person who has a clinical disease or is a carrier of the microorganism. Droplets may be generated by the resident's coughing, sneezing, talking, or during the performance of procedures.Review of Pennsylvania Department of Health PAHAN dated 5/11/23, with a subject of Interim…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean homelike environment for one of two resident neighborhoods (2nd Floor). Findings include: Review of a facility policy dated 2/22/24, entitled Wheelchair Cleaning Policy, indicated the facility will provide clean, functional, and safe resident and facility owned wheelchairs through at least monthly cleaning or as needed. Observation of the 2nd Floor on 10/09/24, between 11:13 a.m. and 11:20 a.m. revealed concerns with four resident wheelchairs. Resident R8's wheelchair was observed to have dust and dried debris on the frame of his/her wheelchair. Resident R14's wheelchair was observed to have dried liquid and debris down the side of his/her wheelchair and on the frame of his/her wheelchair. Resident R55's wheelchair was observed to have dust and dried debris on the frame of his/her wheelchair. Resident R74 was observed to have a dried spaghetti noodle as well as other dried debris and dust on the edge of his/her wheelchair near and under the wheelchair…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical record, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were accurate and reflected the status and care provided to one of 21 residents reviewed (Resident R8). Findings include: Resident R8's clinical record revealed an admission date of 5/15/06, with diagnoses that included stroke, diabetes, and dementia (loss of cognitive functioning affecting a persona memory and behaviors). Resident R8's clinical record revealed a task dated 12/16/20, indicating Resident R8 was to wear a left upper extremity resting hand splint for up to four hours twice a day and to check skin integrity before and after splint wearing. Further review of Resident R8's clinical record revealed it lacked a physician's order for the left upper extremity resting hand splint. Observation of Resident R8 on 10/09/24, at approximately 11:50 a.m. revealed he/she was wearing a left resting hand splint. During an interview on 10/10/24, at 2:44 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that Resident R8 was utilizing a left resting hand…
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 · D2024-10-11 · 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 record, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper care of respiratory equipment for one of two residents reviewed for respiratory services (Resident R35). Findings include: Review of a facility policy dated 2/22/24, entitled Oxygen Concentrator indicated to check inlet filter pad to be sure it is clean and in place and not to run the concentrator without a filter or with a dusty filter as this can cause damage to the concentrator and alter the oxygen concentration. Policy also indicated to remove, rinse, and pat dry the air intake filter weekly or more often if needed to keep clean and free of dust. Resident R35's clinical record revealed an admission date of 12/28/22, with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a lung disease that results in difficulty breathing, cough, and mucus production), dementia (loss of cognitive functioning affecting a persona memory and behaviors), and high blood pressure. Resident R35's physician's order dated 12/28/22,…
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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the presence of necessary documentation to support the specific reasons for discharge versus returning to the facility after an emergency transfer to an acute care facility for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R1). Findings include: Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed an initial admission date of 12/07/23, with diagnoses that included edema (swelling), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and short bowel syndrome (malabsorption disorder caused by lack of functional small intestine). Review of a progress note, dated 12/09/23, and as a late entry, revealed that Resident R1 was displaying behaviors including verbal, throwing things, putting other residents at risk, interfering with resident care and participation in activities. Another nursing note at 1:00 p.m., revealed that Crisis was called and Resident R1 was transferred to an acute care facility on a 302 petition and evaluation. Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed that there was no physician…
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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records and facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and resident representative of a Notice before Transfer/Discharge in writing for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R1). Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled 30 Day Discharge Notice AR-29 revealed to ensure proper notice is given and to secure a safe discharge location per state regulations. Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed an initial admission date of 12/07/23, with diagnoses that included edema (swelling), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and short bowel syndrome (malabsorption disorder caused by lack of functional small intestine). Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed a progress note dated 12/09/23, at 1:00 p.m., which identified that Resident R1 was transferred to the hospital. The clinical record lacked documentation that Resident R1 and their representative was provided with a copy of a Notice of Transfer/Discharge as required. During an interview on 1/24/24, at 2:25 p.m. the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-17 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident privacy and dignity regarding an exposed urinary catheter (a tube placed and held in the bladder to drain urine) drainage bag for two of five residents reviewed for catheters (Residents R88 and R47). Findings include: Review of a facility policy entitled, Indwelling Urinary Catheter dated 2/23/23, indicated .drainage bag should be placed in a position lower than the bladder , policy also indicated The catheter bag should have a privacy cover applied at all times Review of Resident R88's clinical record revealed an admission date of 10/9/23, with diagnosis that included, Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy (a condition that will not let the urine drain naturally), Diabetes (condition of inadequate insulin levels and blood sugar control), and Hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident R88's foley catheter care plan revealed an intervention for position catheter bag and tubing below the level of my bladder, without kinks and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-17 · 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 interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with standards for food safety in one of two refrigerators reviewed (third floor pantry). Findings include: Review of a facility policy entitled Food brought in from outside sources dated 2/23/23, indicated that items brought into the facility must be labeled with the resident's name and the date prepared. The policy also indicated condiment type foods may be kept for 2 months or until factory marked date whichever is first. Review of a facility policy entitled Food Storage dated 2/23/23, indicated that food is stored by methods designed to prevent contamination or cross contamination. Observations on 11/15/23, at approximately 10:30 a.m. a refrigerator in the pantry for resident use on the third floor revealed three bottles of Pepsi with no resident name, an open container of 2.0 Cal med pass (a supplement given to resident during medication administration) with no open date, an open half empty bottle of parmesan cheese with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-10-11 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and the facility's written menus, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their planned menu for four of six meals (lunch meal 10/08/24, dinner meal 10/08/24, dinner meal 10/09/24, and lunch meal 10/10/24). Findings include: Review of a facility policy dated 2/22/24, entitled Menu Substitutions indicated that substitutions will be provided when an uncontrollable situation has temporarily made the item unavailable and all changes will be recorded on the menu extension sheets and menu substitution sheet. Policy further stated that if a substitution is required more than one time, the Registered Dietitian must sign off to make a permanent change along with a permanent adjustment to the spreadsheet. Review of the facility's written and printed menu for the lunch meal on 10/08/24, revealed that the residents were to receive herb marinated chicken thigh, rice pilaf, green beans, wheat bread, cherry crisp, and coffee/tea. Observation of the lunch meal on the resident's unit on 10/08/24, at 12:24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to QUALITY LIFE SERVICES — 10 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TACK, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 33% | since 03/01/2024 |
| TACK-BEARDSLEY, SUSAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 03/01/2024 |
| GARUCCIO, JESSICA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| PHILLIPS, SHELLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| STRAGAND, JAROD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| MARKIVICH, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $592K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 395593. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-18, 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.