Embassy Of Hillsdale Park
383 Mountain View Drive, Hillsdale, PA 15746 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 74 certified beds · (814) 743-6613 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2025
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 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 | 9.7% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 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 | 7.0% | 10.8% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.8% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 37.4% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.5% | 25.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 45.3% | 17.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.8% | 68.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.24 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.66 | 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.
45.6% 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 33 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 74.1% 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 27 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 45.6%CMS range 29.8–73.0 | 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 | 10.8%CMS range 7.0–16.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 74.1% | 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 | 51.9% | 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 | 51.9% | 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 | 6.7% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.3–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.61 | 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 74 beds and averages 72.1 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.42 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
34 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 policies, as well observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential safety hazards related to the facility's hot water temperatures. Findings include:A facility policy for safe water temperatures, dated April 3, 2025, included that water temperatures will be set to temperatures of no more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F), or the state's allowable maximum water temperature. Observation made in the bathroom sink in room [ROOM NUMBER] on February 19, 2026, at 12:45 p.m. revealed that the water felt hot to the touch and the temperature was 120.3 degrees F. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse 1 at the time of this observation revealed that the water was hot to touch and that she was unaware of any reported concerns by residents, staff, or visitors that the water was too hot. Observations of the Maintenance Director checking water temperatures in the shared bathroom sink between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] on February 19,…
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 · D2026-02-20 · 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 observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment by ensuring that residents' wheelchairs were in good repair for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 61). Findings include: The facility's policy for safe and homelike environment dated April 3, 2025, revealed that the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 61, dated February 1, 2026, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance from staff for daily care tasks, used a scoot and go wheelchair, and had diagnoses that included Paranoid schizophrenia and dementia. Observations of Resident's 61 scoot and go wheelchair on February 17, 2026, at 12:59 p.m. revealed that the leather on both arm rests had black tape wrapped around them. Observation of Resident's 61 scoot and go wheelchair on February 19, 2026, at 2:25 p.m. revealed that the leather on both arm rests had black…
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 · D2026-02-20 · 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 clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative, in writing regarding the reason for transfer to the hospital and failed to notify the ombudsman of the transfer to the hospital, for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 5).Findings include:A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 5, dated January 16, 2026, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance from staff for her daily care needs and had diagnoses that included dementia.A nursing note for Resident 5, dated September 7, 2025, revealed that at 1:25 p.m. the resident had a witnessed fall in the hallway resulting in a skin tear to her left ring finger and a reddened area on the left side of her forehead. She was transferred to the hospital and admitted with altered mental status, a head injury, and seizures.Review of Resident 5's clinical record revealed that there was no documented evidence…
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 before2026-02-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized care plan for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 9). Findings include:The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated April 3, 2025, indicated that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 9, dated January 2, 2026, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, was understood, could understand, and required supervision with care needs.Interview with Resident 9 on February 17, 2026, at 10:42 revealed that she has been having diarrhea for a while, and still has to take medication. A nursing note for Resident 9 dated January 28, 2026, indicated that she had a colonoscopy.Physician's orders for Resident 9, dated October 21, 2025, included an order for the resident to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · 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 records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to ensure that physician's orders were followed for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 68). Findings include:A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 68, dated December 20, 2025, revealed that the resident was understood and could understand others, was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure), and heart failure. A care plan, dated June 14, 2024, revealed that staff were to give all cardiac medications as ordered by the physician.Physician's orders for Resident 68, dated July 15, 2025, included an order for the resident to receive 12.5 milligrams (mg) of Coreg (used to treat high blood pressure) two times a day for hypertension. Staff was to hold the medication for a blood pressure reading of less than 90/60 millimeters 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accountability of controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 77).Findings include: The facility's policy for storage of controlled medications dated April 3, 2025, revealed that the destruction/disposal of controlled medications should include a licensed nurse and a licensed pharmacist or authorized nurse supervisor. Documentation on the narcotic record will include the name of the resident, medication, prescription number, amount being destroyed, date of disposition and names and signatures of both the persons disposing of the medication. Physician's orders for Resident 77 dated September 13, 2024, included an order for the resident to receive 0.5 milligrams of Lorazepam (controlled medication for anxiety) one time a day. A nursing note for Resident 77 dated December 23, 2025, revealed that the resident ceased to breath at 4:14 a.m. A controlled narcotic sheet for Resident 77, received…
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 before2026-02-20 · 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 a review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly secured in a medication cart. Findings include:The facility's policy regarding medication storage, dated April 3, 2025, revealed that the facility will maintain and control access to medication carts for licensed and approved personnel. Observations on February 19, 2026, at 2:11 p.m. revealed that Licensed Practical Nurse 2 walked out of the medication room on the ambulatory care unit, leaving the medication cart unlocked and unsupervised inside the medication room and the door to the medication room was held open with a piece of wood. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse 2 on February 19, 2026, at 2:14 p.m. confirmed that the medication cart was unlocked and unsupervised inside the medication room and the door to the medication room was held open with a piece of wood, and that both should have been locked. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on February 19, 2026, at 2:39 p.m.…
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 · D2026-02-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' clinical records were complete and accurately documented for one of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 5).Findings include:A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 5, dated January 16, 2026, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance from staff for her daily care needs, and had diagnoses that included dementia. A physician's order and care plan for Resident 5, dated September 12, 2025, indicated that the resident was to use a bed and chair alarm per the family's request.Observations of Resident 5 on February 17, 2026, at 10:32 a.m. revealed that the resident was in the hallway in his chair and had an alarm in place.Review of the Treatment Administration Records (TAR's) and nurse aide documentation for Resident 5, for November and December 2025, and January and February 2026, revealed that there was no documentation by staff 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility's plans of correction for previous surveys, and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain compliance with nursing home regulations and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies. Findings include:The facility's deficiencies and plans of correction for a State Survey and Certification (Department of Health) survey ending March 6, 2025, revealed that the facility developed plans of correction that included quality assurance systems to ensure that the facility maintained compliance with cited nursing home regulations. The results of the current survey, ending February 20, 2026, identified repeated deficiencies related the development of individualized care plans, providing quality care, ensuring that the resident's environment was free from accident hazards, and preventing issues with the accountability of controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused). The facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain professional practices that support infection prevention and control for three of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 7, 11, and 26). Findings include:The facility policy regarding hand hygiene, dated April 3, 2026, included that hand hygiene is a general term for cleaning your hands with soap and water or the use of an antiseptic hand rub. The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. If the task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, and immediately after removing gloves. The facility policy regarding medication administration, dated April 3, 2026, included that medications are administered by licensed nurses or other staff that are licensed to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. Wash hands prior to administering medication per facility policy and product. Remove medication from its source, taking…
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.
Show the remaining 24 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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
Based on review of facility policies, clinical records, and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 54). Findings include: The facility's policy for abuse, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that the facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, and exploitation of its residents or the misappropriation of resident property. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Willful meant the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 54, dated February 11, 2025, revealed that the resident was rarely understood, could rarely understand, and had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and Down's syndrome. A care plan for Resident 54, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a reasonable accommodation of needs by failing to ensure that the call bell was within reach for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 27). Findings include: A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 27, dated December 13, 2024, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired and required maximum assistance for transfers and toileting. The resident's current care plan indicated that the resident had recent falls, and staff were to ensure the call bell was within reach. The facility's call bell policy, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that the call bell would be within easy reach and secured if needed. Observations of Resident 27 on March 3, 2025, at 10:38 a.m. revealed that the resident was sitting in his wheelchair in the middle of his room with his call bell lying on his bed out of the resident's reach. Interview with Resident 27 at that time…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 policies, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's baseline care plan included information regarding the resident's immediate care needs for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 74). Findings include: A facility policy for baseline care plans, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that the facility will develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission that includes the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident including, but not limited to, initial goals based on admission orders and physician's orders. Interventions shall be initiated that address the resident's current needs including any special needs such as for intravenous therapy (administration of fluids and/or medications directly into a person's vein). A nursing note for Resident 74, dated February 25, 2025, at 4:23 p.m., revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address the care needs of residents for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 29). Findings include: The facility's policy for Comprehensive Care Plans, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that the facility develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. The comprehensive person-centered care plan is developed within seven days of the completion of the required comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs). The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated…
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 before2025-03-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated/revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for two of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 9, 31). Findings include: The facility's policy for Comprehensive Care Plans, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that the facility develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. The comprehensive person-centered care plan is developed within seven days of the completion of the required comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs). The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders regarding wound treatments were followed for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 74). Findings include: A nursing note for Resident 74, dated February 25, 2025, at 4:23 p.m. revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included a diabetic foot ulcer (a wound to the foot due to a complication of diabetes) and peripheral vascular disease (a disease causing poor blood circulation to lower limbs). Physician's orders for Resident 74, dated March 1, 2025, included orders to cleanse the resident's right lateral diabetic foot ulcer with normal saline (a sterile solution used for the moistening of wound dressings and wound debridement), apply betadine (a solution used to treat and prevent infection) to the base of the wound, and secure with abdominal dressing (used for a wound with large amounts of drainage or used as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record reviews, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide proper positioning in a wheelchair for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 38). Findings include: An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 38, dated November 29, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance with daily care needs, and had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia and depression. Physician's orders for the resident, dated September 17, 2024, included orders for the resident to be seated in a Broda chair (modified wheelchair) at all times when out of bed with bolsters bilaterally to trunk, skil-care back pillow, and leg rests on during transport and off after transport. Observations on March 3, 2025, at 10:19 a.m. revealed that Resident 38 was sitting in a Broda chair in the activity room, and she was leaning to the right side with her head lying on the armrest. Observations on March 6, 2025, at 10:40 a.m. revealed that Resident…
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 before2025-03-06 · 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 facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 14). Findings include: A facility policy for resident alarms, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that the use of alarms does not eliminate the need for adequate supervision of the resident. Wander/elopement alarms alert staff when the resident nears or exits an area or building. When alarms are utilized, additional monitoring shall be provided, including but not limited to verifying alarms are used in accordance with the resident's care plan and verifying alarms are working properly. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 14, dated November 10, 2024, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance with care needs, and had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia. A care plan for the resident, dated March 11, 2024, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids 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 clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to flush a PICC line (a tube placed in a vein that can be used to deliver fluids and/or medications) as ordered by the physician for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 74). Findings include: A nursing note for Resident 74, dated February 25, 2025, at 4:23 p.m. revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included a diabetic foot ulcer (a wound to the foot due to a complication of diabetes) and peripheral vascular disease (a disease causing poor blood circulation to lower limbs). She had a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC - a thin tube inserted into a vein and used long term for the administration of fluids and/or medications) in her right upper arm for maintenance at that time. Physician's orders for Resident 74, dated February 25, 2025, included orders for the staff to maintain the resident's PICC and flush each port every 12…
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 before2025-03-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate accounting of controlled medications (medications with the potential to be abused) for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 46). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding medication administration, dated November 8, 2024, indicated that staff were to document that medication was given on the appropriate line of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR). Physician's orders for Resident 46, dated November 20, 2023, included an order for the resident to receive a 1 milligram (mg) tablet of Ativan (an anti-anxiety medication) every six hours as needed. Resident 46's controlled drug records for January and February 2025 revealed that a 1 mg dose of Ativan was signed-out on January 21, 2025, at 7:50 a.m. and February 28 2025, at 8:00 a.m.; however, the resident's clinical record, including the MAR, contained no documented evidence that the Ativan was actually administered to the resident. Interview with 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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that non-pharmacological (non-medication) interventions were attempted prior to the administration of as needed anti-anxiety medications for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 46). Findings include: A quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 46, dated February 1, 2025, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, was understood and was able to be understood by others, and had physical behaviors directed toward others. The resident's care plan dated January 14, 2024, revealed that staff were to minimize the potential for disruptive behaviors by offering tasks that divert attention. Physician's orders, dated February 4, 2025, and February 19, 2025, included an order for the resident to receive 1 milligram (mg) of Ativan (an anti-anxiety medication) every six hours as needed for agitation. Resident 46's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2025 and March 2025…
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 before2025-03-06 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility's plans of correction and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies. Findings include: The facility's deficiencies and plans of corrections for State Survey and Certification (Department of Health) survey ending April 11, 2024, revealed that the facility developed plans of correction that included quality assurance systems to ensure that the facility maintained compliance with cited nursing home regulations. The results of the current survey, ending March 6, 2025, identified repeated deficiencies related to abuse and neglect, updating/revising care plans, quality of care, and a safe environment that is free of accident hazards. The facility's plan of correction for a deficiency regarding failure to ensure residents were free from abuse and neglect, cited during the survey ending April 11, 2024, revealed that 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 · E2024-04-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Pennsylvania's Nursing Practice Act and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders for blood sugar checks were obtained by a professional (registered) nurse for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 24). Findings include: The Pennsylvania Code, Title 49, Professional and Vocational Standards, State Board of Nursing, 21.11 (a)(1)(2)(4) indicated that the registered nurse was to collect complete and ongoing data to determine nursing care needs, analyze the health status of individuals and compare the data with the norm when determining nursing care needs, and carry out nursing care actions that promote, maintain and restore the well-being of individuals. Physician's orders for Resident 24, dated October 4, 2024, included an order for the resident to receive one 500 milligram (mg) tablet of Metformin (helps to control the amount of glucose (sugar) in your blood) in the morning at 7:00 a.m. Resident 24's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated March and April 2024, revealed 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · 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
Based on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure that physician's orders were followed for four of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 12, 14, 22, 24). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding medication administration, dated March 14, 2024, indicated that staff were to obtain and record vital signs when applicable or per physician's orders. When applicable, hold medication for those vital signs outside the physician's prescribed parameters. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a federally-mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 12, dated February 22, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood and could understand others, was cognitively intact, and required minimal assistance with care. A nursing note for Resident 12, dated March 16, 2024, revealed that the nurse aide noticed that the resident's left eye was red 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 · E2024-04-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide 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 policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow recommendations from a wound consultation for two of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 30). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding pressure ulcers, dated March 14, 2024, indicated that the facility was committed to the prevention of avoidable pressure injuries, unless clinically unavoidable, and to provide treatment and services to heal the pressure ulcer/injury, prevent infection and the development of additional pressure ulcers/injuries. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a federally-mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 3, dated March 29, 2024, indicated that she was cognitively intact, had no history of rejecting care, required extensive assistance from staff for daily care needs, and had an unhealed Stage 3 pressure ulcer. A physician's progress note, dated March 29, 2024, revealed that Resident 3 was to be assessed for an air mattress to assist with pressure distribution. Observations…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards caused by residents with aggressive behaviors for four of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 44, 58, 61, 63). Findings include: A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 14, dated December 15, 2023, revealed that she was understood, could understand, and had a diagnosis of dementia. A care plan for the resident, dated September 8, 2023, revealed that the resident had an alteration in behavior related to abusive attacks on staff and/or other residents; verbally abusive, threatening behaviors; argumentative with staff; yells at staff and other residents, and a history of resident-to-resident altercations. Staff were to intervene as needed to protect the rights and safety of others, approach/speak in a calm manner, divert attention, remove from situation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · 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 policies and clinical records, medication manufacturer's instructions, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly labeled/dated for three of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 10, 11, 45). Findings include: The facility's policy for labeling medications, dated March 14, 2024, indicated that all pre-filled pens and multi-dose vials of medication maintained in the facility shall be labeled with date opened and the initials of the healthcare professional, and are to be discarded within 28 days unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer. The most current manufacturer's instructions for insulin Humalog Kwikpen Pen-injector 100 unit/ml (milliliter) solution (a fast acting insulin) indicated that prefilled pens that are in use should be kept at room temperature and must be used within 28 days or be discarded. Physician's orders for Resident 10, dated July 9, 2023, included an order for Keppra solution (medication used to treat seizures) 100 mg/mL 5 ml by mouth two times a day.…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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
Based on review of facility policies, clinical records, and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 58). Findings include: The facility's policy for abuse, dated March 14, 2024, indicated that the facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, and exploitation of its residents or the misappropriation of resident property. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Willful meant the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 117, dated June 8, 2023, revealed that the resident was usually understood, could usually understand, and had diagnoses that included dementia and schizophrenia (a serious mental illness 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise care plans for three of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 3, 51). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated March 14, 2024, indicated that the care plan revisions would be reviewed, and revised as necessary, when a resident experiences a status change. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 1, dated January 19, 2024, indicated that the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and was not receiving an anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication. Resident 1's care plan, dated February 2, 2024, indicated that the resident had the potential for bleeding or hemorrhage related to the use of anti-coagulant medication. A review of Resident 1's physician's orders and Medication Administration Record (MAR) for April 2024 revealed that the resident was not receiving an anticoagulant medication. Resident 1's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 1) who had an indwelling urinary catheter. Findings include: The facility's policy regarding indwelling urinary catheters (a flexible tube inserted and held in the bladder to drain urine), dated March 14, 2024, revealed that care would be taken to follow infection control guidelines when providing catheter care and emptying the drainage bag. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 1, dated January 19, 2024, revealed that the resident was moderately cognitively impaired, required assistance from staff for daily care activities, had an indwelling urinary catheter, and had diagnoses that included neurogenic bladder (lack of bladder control). Physician's orders, dated December 28, 2023, included an order for the resident to have a urinary catheter, 18…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free from significant medication errors for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 22). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding medication administration, dated March 14, 2024, indicated that the facility was to administer medication in accordance with the physician orders. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 22, dated March 14, 2024, revealed that the resident had diagnoses that included diabetes (a disease that interferes with blood sugar control) and received insulin. Physician's orders for Resident 22, dated December 15, 2022, included an order for the resident to receive 6 units of Lispro insulin subcutaneously (injected just under the skin) one time a day in the morning, 6 units one time a day at the lunch meal, and 6 units one time a day at the supper meal, and to hold the insulin if the resident's blood sugar was less than or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for an invasive procedure to collect a specimen for a laboratory test for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 24). Findings include: A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 24, dated January 10, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood and understands. Physician's orders, dated January 4, 2024, included an order to obtain a urine culture (a test that looks for and identifies bacteria in urine) and sensitivity (a test that helps find out which antibiotic will be most effective in treating a bacterial infection). A progress note for Resident 24, dated January 5, 2024, revealed that the resident was straight cathed (an invasive procedure in which a plastic tube is inserted into the bladder) for a dark amber urine and the sample was sent to the lab. There was no documented evidence that staff obtained a physician's order to obtain Resident 24's urine…
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 before2024-04-11 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility's plans of correction for previous surveys, and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies. Findings include: The facility's deficiencies and plan of correction for the State Survey and Certification (Department of Health) survey ending May 11, 2023, revealed that the facility developed plans of corrections that included quality assurance systems to ensure that the facility-maintained compliance with cited nursing home regulations. The results of the current survey, ending April 11, 2024, identified repeated deficiencies related to the revision of care plans, failure to ensure that residents remained free of significant medication errors, and medication storage and labeling. The facility's plan of correction for a deficiency regarding revising care plans, cited during the survey ending May 11, 2023, revealed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with showers as scheduled for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 3). Findings include: A facility policy for resident showers dated March 14, 2024, indicated that residents will be provided showers as per request or as per facility schedule protocols. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 3, dated February 21, 2024, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, was dependent on staff for showers and bathing, and had diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease. A care plan for Resident 3, dated December 12, 2023, indicated that the resident required two staff members to provide care. A care plan, dated January 1, 2024, indicated that the resident was to be assisted with showering as per facility policy weekly. A review of the facility shower schedule indicated that Resident 3 was to have a shower every…
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 EMBASSY HEALTHCARE — 33 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 1.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMBASSY PA TENANT 2 HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/10/2020 |
| EMBASSY HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/10/2020 |
| HANDLER, AARON | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/10/2020 |
| EMBASSY HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/19/2025 |
| HERITAGE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/19/2025 |
| REPCHICK, GEORGE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/10/2020 |
| ROSCOE, BRANDON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| ROWLES, SHANNON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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 $332K 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 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 395569. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, 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.