Communities At Indian Haven,
1675 Saltsburg Avenue, Indiana, PA 15701 · Government - County · 108 certified beds · (724) 465-3900 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (44) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,281 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-05)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.1% | 16.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.4% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.6% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.4% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.4% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.5% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.3% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.0% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.1% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.7% | 9.5% | 12.0% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.4% 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 111 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.5% 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 52 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 54.4%CMS range 45.8–60.8 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 7.7–16.2 | 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 | 63.5% | 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 | 61.5% | 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 | 86.8% | 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 | 93.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 94.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 1.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 4.2–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.64 | 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 108 beds and averages 68.4 residents a day — about 63% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
44 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 33 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-05 · 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 neglect for one of seven residents reviewed (Resident 3), resulting in Immediate Jeopardy to the resident's physical, mental health, and safety. Findings include: The facility's abuse policy, dated March 4, 2024, revealed that the facility would provide a safe environment where residents are not subject to mental, physical, sexual, and verbal abuse or neglect by staff, residents, volunteers, consultants, contractors, and other caregivers, visitors or family members. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandatory assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 3, dated February 19, 2025, revealed that the resident was understood, could understand, was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses that included venous insufficiency (poor circulation) and muscle weakness. Resident 3's care plan, dated May 28, 2024, revealed that the resident required staff assistance for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-30 · 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 ombudsman of the transfer to the hospital, for three of 32 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 4, 7). Findings include: A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 1, dated January 9, 2026, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance from staff for her daily care needs and had diagnoses that included heart failure and renal failure. A nursing note, dated September 26, 2025, at 2:45 a.m. revealed that Resident 1 had a decline in condition, had a fever of 101 degrees Fahrenheit (F), was sweating through her clothing, had crackles (lung sounds that indicate the presence of fluids or secretions in the airways) and occasional moist cough, and her oxygen saturation (percentage of oxygen in blood) dropped to into the 70's with 2 liters of oxygen on. The physician was notified and an order was received to transfer the resident to the emergency room for evaluation.…
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 before2026-01-30 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Care Area Assessment Process of comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments and comprehensive assessments were completed in the required time frame for two of 32 residents reviewed (Residents 12, 68). Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2025, indicated that for admission MDS assessments, the assessment completion date, and the Care Area Assessment (CAA - the process of completing an in-depth assessment of triggered, potentially problematic care areas) completion date (Item V0200B2) were to be no later than the resident's admission date plus 13 calendar days and there must be an MDS every 92 days. A comprehensive MDS assessment for Resident 12 revealed that the ARD was…
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 before2026-01-30 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that quarterly Minimum Data Set assessments were completed within the required time frame for 2 of 32 residents reviewed (Residents 37, 40). Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2025, indicated that the assessment reference date (ARD - the last day of the assessment's look-back period) of a quarterly MDS assessment must be no more than 92 days after the ARD of the most recent assessment of any type, and the assessment was to have a completion date (Section Z0500B) that was no later than the ARD plus 14 calendar days. A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident 37 had an ARD of October 31, 2025, which was more than 92 days after the last assessment. A quarterly MDS assessment for 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 before2026-01-30 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for six of 32 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 11, 12, 13, 16, 38). Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which gives instructions for completing Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (required assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2025, revealed that Section N0415E1 Anticoagulant was to be checked if the resident took the medication during the seven-day look-back period.Physician's orders for Resident 1, dated October 3, 2025, included an order for the resident to receive 15 milligram (mg) of Rivaroxaban (anticoagulant) at bedtime for chronic atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm).Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident 1, dated January 2026, revealed that staff administered 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 · Dcited before2026-01-30 · 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 reviews, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans that included specific and individualized interventions to address the care needs of one of 32 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 4, 16, 18, 47, 75, 84, 85). Findings include:The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated April 15, 2025, indicated that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident.A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 3 dated November 24, 2025, indicated the resident was cognitively impaired, required assistance from staff for daily care needs and had…
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 before2026-01-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, 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 32 residents reviewed (Residents 44, and 53).Findings include: The facility's policy regarding plans of care, dated April 15, 2025, indicated that resident assessments were ongoing and care plans were revised as information about the resident and their condition changed. The interdisciplinary team reviews and updates the care plan when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition; when the desired outcome is not met; when the resident has been readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay; and at least quarterly, in conjunction with the required quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 44, dated December 24, 2025, 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 · D2026-01-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure 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 a professional (registered) nurse assessed a resident after a change in condition for one of 32 residents reviewed (Resident 90). 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.The facility's policy regarding change in condition, dated April 15, 2025, indicated that the resident would be assessed following a change in condition. A comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 90, dated December 26, 2025, revealed that the resident was…
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 · D2026-01-30 · 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 review of facility policies, clinical records, and shower schedules, 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 32 residents reviewed (Resident 75).Findings include:The facility policy for the procedure for bathing a resident in a tub or shower dated April 15, 2025, indicated that the purpose of the procedure was to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin. Documentation after a tub or shower should include the date and time the shower/tub was performed, the name of the individual who assisted with the bath, how the resident tolerated the shower/tub bath, and if the resident refused the shower/tub, the reason why and the intervention taken. Staff should notify the supervisor if the resident refuses the shower/tub bath. A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident 75, dated December 1, 2026, revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for bathing or showering, and had…
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 before2026-01-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical record reviews, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders regarding medication administration were followed for one of eight residents reviewed (Resident 4).Findings include: The facility policy for administering medication dated April 15, 2025, included that medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. The individual administering the medication must initial the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) on the appropriate area after giving each medication.A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 4, dated December 19, 2025, indicated that the resident was cognitively intact, required assistance from staff for daily care needs, and had diagnoses that included heart failure and diabetes. Physician's orders for Resident 4, dated September 6, 2025, included an order for the resident to receive two grams of Ceftriaxone ( an antibiotic)…
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 · D2026-01-30 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that weights were obtained per the facility policy and that the physician was notified of significant weight loss for two of 32 residents reviewed ( Residents 53 and 75). Findings include: A facility policy for weight assessment and intervention dated April 15, 2025, included that any weight change of greater than five pounds for residents weighing 100 pounds or more within 30 days will be retaken within 24 hours A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 53, dated October 28, 2025, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, required assistance from staff for daily care needs, had diagnosis that included senile degeneration of the brain (a decline in an individual's memory, behavior, and cognitive abilities), and had unplanned weight loss. Care plan for Resident 53 dated December 12, 2024, indicated that the resident had the potential for a nutritional…
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 33 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-30 · 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 observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly stored for one of 32 residents reviewed (Resident 4).Findings include:A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 4, dated December 19, 2025, indicated that the resident was cognitively intact, required assistance from staff for daily care needs, received an antidepressant medication, anticoagulant medication, and anti-convulsant medication. Resident 4 had diagnoses that included heart failure and diabetes. Observation of Resident 4 on January 28, 2026, at 9:53 a.m. revealed the resident was sitting in her wheelchair beside her bed and an unsupervised medicine cup containing 7 unlabeled clean and dry pills was sitting on her overbed table. Interview with Resident 4 at that time revealed that they were her morning medications that the nurse left for her to take.Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse 2 on January 28, 2026, at 9:57 a.m. revealed that she believed that Resident 4…
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 before2026-01-30 · 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 corrections for an annual survey ending February 5, 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 January 30, 2026, identified repeated deficiencies related to a failure to accurately complete MDS assessments, failure to create individualized care plans, quality of care, and infection control.The facility's plan of correction for a deficiency regarding accurate MDS assessments, cited during the survey ending February 5, 2025, revealed that the facility would complete audits and report…
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 before2026-01-30 · 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 observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper infection control practices were followed during the administration of a treatment for one of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 48). Findings include:The facility policy regarding nephrostomy tubes dated April 15, 2025, indicated that the steps in completing nephrostomy tube dressing changes and irrigation include to wash and dry your hands, open a sterile (completely free from germs/microorganisms (like bacteria) ) drape and create a sterile field (a designated, microorganism-free area prepared to prevent contamination during procedures), open several packages of gauze pads, open several packages of povidone-iodine swabs, and open the disposable waste bag and place it away from the sterile field. The steps for the dressing change include to position resident on their side opposite of the tube, place a pad under the resident, wash your hands and put on clean gloves, careful remove the wet or soiled dressing, discard 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 · D2025-03-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 staff reported an allegation of neglect in a timely manner for one of seven residents reviewed (Resident 3). Findings include: The facility's abuse policy, dated March 4, 2024, revealed that all allegations of abuse shall be reported immediately to the charge nurse, Director of Nursing, Nursing Home Administrator, and resident's physician for investigation into the circumstances of the incident. The staff member who discovers the incident, suspected abuse situation, or has the initial knowledge of such incidents will be responsible for immediately notifying his or her supervisor. The supervisor who becomes aware of such incidents must immediately report to the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing, in person or by telephone. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandatory assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 3, dated February 19, 2025, revealed that the 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 · D2025-03-05 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of job descriptions and the deficiencies cited during the current survey, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) failed to assume responsibility for effective management of the facility to ensure that the residents' environment remained free from neglect, and for ensuring that staff reported abuse and protected the residents from further abuse/neglect. Findings include: The job description for the NHA, dated January 15, 2025, indicated that the primary function of this position was to provide general oversight and direction to all services provided by The Communities at Indian Haven. Maintains compliance with the Department of Health, Welfare, Medicare, and Educational regulatory requirements. Supervision and coordination of services to include overseeing budget and corporate policies and procedures related to the care of all residents. The job description for the DON, dated November 26, 2024, indicated that the primary function of this position was to organize, administrate, and supervise the total nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-05 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessments were completed within the required timeframe for seven of 43 residents reviewed (Residents 19, 33, 35, 38, 43, 54, 62). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of residents' abilities and care needs), dated October 2024, indicated that the completion date for a quarterly assessment is the Assessment Reference Date (ARD - the last day of an assessment's look-back period) plus 14 days. A quarterly assessment is due every 92 days (ARD of most recent assessment + 92 days). A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident 19, with an ARD of September 3, 2024, was due to be completed on September 16, 2024; however, it was not completed until October 4, 2024, which was 18 days late. A quarterly MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-05 · 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 a review of facility policies and written menus, as well as observations and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their planned menu. Findings include: A facility policy, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that food menu substitutions for unplanned situations, such as an emergency event, food unavailability, or special dining events, would be communicated to residents prior to meal service. The facility's written and printed menu for the dinner meal on February 4, 2025, indicated that the residents were to receive vegetable soup, chicken salad croissant, roasted vegetables, and sliced peaches. Observations of the lunch meal in the dining room on February 4, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. revealed that the facility served chicken salad on a hamburger bun and not a croissant as listed on the menu. Interview with Dietary Aide 2 on February 4, 2025, at 5:22 p.m. confirmed that staff made a mistake, and that the Dietary Manager was to update staff and residents. Interview with the Resident 51, who was the resident council president, on February…
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 before2025-02-05 · 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 policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans that included specific and individualized treatment for two of 43 residents reviewed (Residents 37, 293) who were receiving intravenous antibiotics and anticoagulants. Findings include: A facility policy for care plans, dated January 15, 2024, revealed that the care plan is based on the resident's comprehensive assessment. admission orders for Resident 37, dated December 18, 2024, included an order for the resident to receive 10 milligrams (mg) normal saline to flush the peripherally inserted central catheter or PICC line (a thin flexible tube inserted into a vein in the upper arm for fluid or medication administration), and for the resident to receive 1.5 grams Vancomycin (antibiotic) every 24 hours for a left hip infection. Observations of Resident 37 on February 3, 2025, at 1:03 p.m. revealed that the resident had a PICC line in her right upper extremity. Resident 37's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-05 · 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 clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide medications as ordered by the physician for one of 43 residents reviewed (Resident 41). Findings include: A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident 41, dated December 19, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, required moderate assistance from staff for daily care, and had diagnoses that included high blood pressure. Physician's orders for Resident 41, dated February 4, 2025, revealed that the resident was to stop taking 5 milligrams (mg) amlodipine (a medication to treat high blood pressure) and to start taking 5 mg of lisinopril (a medication to treat high blood pressure). Observations of Licensed Practical Nurse 1 during medication administration on February 5, 2025, at 8:00 a.m. revealed that she dropped a 5 mg tablet of amlodipine on the cart, picked it up with her bare hands, and administered the pill to Resident 41. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse 1 at that time confirmed that she administered 5 mg of amlodipine and not 5 mg of lisinopril 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 · D2025-02-05 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that laboratory specimens were obtained as ordered by the physician for one of 43 residents reviewed (Resident 37). Findings include: A facility policy for lab and diagnostic testing, dated January 15, 2024, revealed that the physician will order diagnostic testing and the staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests. Physician's orders for Resident 37, dated January 21, 2025, included an order for the resident to have a vancomycin (antibiotic) trough (a blood test to monitor the therapeutic dose of vancomycin) 30 minutes prior to vancomycin administration on January 24, 2025. A nursing note for Resident 37, dated January 25, 2025, at 1:15 p.m. revealed that the vancomycin trough was missed on January 25, 2025. New orders were received by the physician to have the vancomycin trough drawn 30 minutes prior to vancomycin administration on January 25, 2025. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on February 5, 2025, at 10:52 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 · Dcited before2025-02-05 · 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 review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that clinical records were complete and accurately documented for one of 43 residents reviewed (Resident 37). Findings include: The facility's policy for medication administration, dated January 15, 2024, revealed that the facility shall maintain a medication administration record to document all medications administered. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 37, dated December 17, 2024, revealed that she was cognitively intact and required partial staff assistance with her daily care needs. Physician's orders for Resident 37, dated December 17, 2024, included orders for the resident to receive 1.5 grams of vancomycin HCL in dextrose intravenous solution 1.5-5 grams/300 ml (an antibiotic) every 24 hours; 10 milliliters (ml) of normal saline solution (NSS) intravenously after receiving her antibiotic; 5 ml of Heparin Porcine (an anticoagulant) intravenously…
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 before2025-02-05 · 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 plans of corrections for a State Survey and Certification (Department of Health) survey ending March 21, 2024, and October 2, 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 January 24, 2025, identified repeated deficiencies related to timely quarterly MDS assessments, accurate MDS assessments, comprehensive care plans, and quality of care. The facility's plan of correction for a deficiency regarding a failure to provide quarterly assessments at least every three months, cited during the survey…
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 before2025-02-05 · 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 clinical record reviews, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper infection control practices were followed while administering medications for one of 43 residents reviewed (Resident 41). Findings include: Physician's orders for Resident 41 included orders for the resident to receive 5 mg amlodipine (a medication that is used to treat high blood pressure) that was discontinued on February 4, 2025. Observations of Licensed Practical Nurse 1 during medication administration on February 5, 2025, at 8:00 a.m. revealed that she dropped a 5 mg tablet of amlodipine on the cart and picked it up with her bare hands, then administered the pill to Resident 41. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse 1 at that time confirmed that she should not have touched the 5 mg tablet of amlodipine with her bare hands and administered it to the resident. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on February 5, 2025, at 10:07 a.m. confirmed that staff were not to touch residents' medications with their bare hands. 28 Pa. Code…
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 before2024-10-02 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive admission Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required timeframe for two of 11 residents reviewed (Residents 2, 4). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2024, indicated that for admission MDS assessments, the assessment completion date was to be no later than the resident's admission date plus 13 calendar days. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 2, dated August 22, 2024, revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The resident's MDS was documented in section Z0500B…
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 before2024-10-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 care plans to address individualized resident care needs for one of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 4). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychological and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition changes. Physician's orders for Resident 4, dated August 16, 2024, included an order for the resident to be admitted to hospice (specialized care that provides physical comfort and emotional, social, and spiritual support for people nearing the end of life). A nursing note for Resident 4, dated August 7, 2024, revealed that the resident was seen by the physician regarding his admission to the facility and 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 · D2024-10-02 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment was completed in the required timeframe for one of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2024, indicated that a quarterly assessment was to have a completion date (Section Z0500B) that was no later than the assessment reference date (ARD-last day of the observation/look-back period) plus 14 calendar days. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 1, with an ARD of August 2, 2024, revealed that the resident's MDS was documented in section Z0500B as being completed on September 3, 2024, which was 32 days…
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 before2024-10-02 · 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 policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care plans were updated to reflect changes in residents' care needs for three of 11 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, 4). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychological and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the residents' condition changes. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 1, dated August 2, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood and was able to understand others, required assistance with care needs, received diuretic medications (medications used to treat fluid build-up), and had diagnoses that included congestive heart…
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 before2024-10-02 · 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 review of clinical records, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented for one of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings include: A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 1, dated August 2, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood and was able to understand others, required assistance with care needs, received diuretic medications (medications used to treat fluid build-up), and had diagnoses that included congestive heart failure (the heart cannot pump blood as well as it should causing weight gain due to fluid to build up in the lungs and lower legs), hypertension (high blood pressure), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic lung disease making breathing difficult). A nurse's note for Resident 1, dated September 25, 2024, at 4:34 p.m., revealed that the resident's daughter had concerns related to his recent low blood pressures, diuretic…
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 · E2024-03-21 · tag F0655 — patternCreate 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 review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that baseline care plans included the information and instructions needed to provide person-centered care for four of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 77, 78, 79, 82). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding baseline care plans, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that a baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs would be developed for each resident within forty-eight hours of admission. The interdisciplinary team would review the healthcare practitioner's orders (e.g., dietary needs, medications, routine treatments, etc.) and implement a baseline care plan to meet the resident's immediate care needs including, but not limited to the following: initial goals based on admission orders, physician orders, dietary orders, therapy services, and social services. admission information for Resident 77 revealed that she was admitted to the facility on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care plans were updated to reflect changes in care needs for four of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 6, 25, 57, 67). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that nursing staff and/or the interdisciplinary team were to update care plans as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 6, dated January 17, 2024, revealed that the resident was understood; could understand; was cognitively intact; had diagnoses that included osteoarthritis (degeneration of the joints), high blood pressure and anxiety; wore bilateral hearing aides; and was dependent on staff for daily care needs. Observations of Resident 6 in bed on March 18, 2024, at 11:41 a.m. revealed that her hearing aides were not in her ears. Her roommate stated that they are…
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 · E2024-03-21 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide 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 review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that monitoring of the resident's restorative nursing programs for range of motion and transferring did not reflect the resident's progress toward program goals for two of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 14). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding restorative nursing, dated January 15, 2024, revealed providing nursing interventions that promote the resident's ability to adapt and adjust to living as independently and safely as possible. This concept actively focuses on achieving and maintaining optimal physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning. The restorative nursing care programs are designed and designated to assist the resident in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of self-care and independence. Reassessment of progress, goals, and duration/frequency was part of the care plan process. Documentation of reassessment in the medical record with evidence of periodic evaluation was completed by a licensed staff member (at least quarterly). Documentation should…
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 · E2024-03-21 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 administer pain medications as ordered by the physician for two of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 78, 82). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding pain medications, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that staff were to administer pain medications as ordered by the physician. Physician's orders for Resident 78, dated March 11, 2024, included orders for the resident to receive 5-325 milligram (mg) tablet of hydrocodone-acetaminophen (narcotic pain medication) every twelve hours as needed for a pain rating of 6 to 10 (on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst pain). Resident 78's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2024 revealed that staff administered hydrocodone-acetaminophen for a pain rating that was less than six on March 14 at 8:39 p.m., March 15 at 10:09 p.m., and March 19 at 7:51 p.m. Physician's orders for Resident 82, dated March 18, 2024, included orders for the resident to receive 5 mg of oxycodone (narcotic pain medication)…
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 · E2024-03-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accountability for controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) for one of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 63). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding controlled substances, dated January 31, 2024, indicated that accurate accountability of the inventory of all controlled drugs is maintained at all times. When a controlled substance was administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication was to immediately enter the following information on the accountability record and Medication Administration Record (MAR): date and time of administration, amount administered, remaining quantity, and the initials of the nurse administering the dose, completed after the medication is actually administered. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 63, dated January 20, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact and required assistance…
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 · E2024-03-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure 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 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 20 residents reviewed (Resident 20). Findings include: The facility's medication administration policy, dated January 15, 2024, revealed that medications were to be administered as prescribed. Manufacturer's instructions for Aspart, revised February 2015, indicated that the medication should be administered within five or ten minutes of a meal. Physician's orders for Resident 20, dated December 9, 2023, included orders for the resident to receive 10 units of insulin Aspart (fast-acting insulin) in the morning before breakfast, 10 units before lunch, and 10 units before dinner. Medication Administration Records (MAR) for Resident 20 for January, February, and March 2024 revealed that he received his insulin at 9:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. However, meal times were 8:10 a.m. for breakfast, 11:40 a.m. for lunch, and 4:40 p.m. for dinner. Resident 20's insulin administration was not within…
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 before2024-03-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, as well as medication package inserts, it was determined that the facility failed to discard expired medication in one of two medication rooms reviewed (Medication room [ROOM NUMBER]), failed to discard multiple bags of outdated IV (fluid that is administered into the vein) stock solution, and failed to administer insulin as per manufacture's instructions. Findings include: The facility's policy regarding medication storage, dated [DATE], revealed that the facility would not use outdated drugs or biologicals. Observations in Medication room [ROOM NUMBER] on [DATE], at 9:10 a.m. revealed that one Forteo (a man-made hormone that stimulates new bone growth) injection pen was labeled with an expiration date of [DATE], and there were five 100 cc bags of outdated IV stock solution, two that expired in [DATE] and three that expired in [DATE]. Interview with Registered Nurse 4 on [DATE], at 9:20 a.m. confirmed that the Forteo injection pen and 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 · D2024-03-21 · 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 policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the ombudsman about hospitalizations for three of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 24, 49, 57). Findings include: The facility's current policy for Transfer and Discharge Notification indicated that upon transfer to the hospital the ombudsman would be notified. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 24, dated December 29, 2023, indicated that the resident was cognitively intact, usually understood and could sometimes understand, required assistance from staff for her daily care needs, and had diagnoses that included congestive heart failure (inability of the heart to pump blood throughout the body sufficiently) and coronary artery disease (a condition that limits blood flow to the heart). Resident 24 was transferred to the hospital on March 15, 2024, for a cardiac evaluation. There was no documented evidence that a written notice of Resident 24's transfer to 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 · Dcited before2024-03-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for five of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 20, 27, 31, 58, 72). Findings include: The Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, which gives instructions for completing Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, revealed that Section B0700 was to be coded zero (0) if the resident was understood, one (1) if the resident was usually understood, two (2) if the resident was sometimes understood, and three (3) if the resident was rarely/never understood. Section B0800 was to be coded zero (0) if the resident could understand others, one (1) if the resident usually understood others, two (2) if the resident sometimes understands others and three (3) if the resident rarely/never understands others. Section C0100 was to be coded zero (0) if the resident is rarely/never…
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 before2024-03-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans that included specific and individualized interventions to address specific care needs for three of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 20, 27, 72). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding care plans, dated January 15, 2024, indicated that resident's care plans would be developed based on their needs. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 20, dated Feburary 3, 2024, indicated that the resident was alert and oriented and able to make his needs known. A physician's order, dated August 30, 2023, included an order for the resident to receive 2.5 milligrams (mg) Xarelto (blood thinner) two times per day. Review of Resident 20's Medication Administration Record, dated February and March 2024, revealed that the resident received Xarelto twice a day. 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 before2024-03-21 · 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 policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders for two of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 57, 63). Findings include: The facility's policy regarding implementation of physican orders indicated that changes to the plan of care will be recorded, communicated, and implemented as ordered by the medical provider. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's abilities and care needs) for Resident 57, dated February 15, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, required moderate assistance from staff for daily care tasks, had a care plan that indicated the resident was at risk for urinary tract infections and sepsis (a life threatening infection in the blood), and had diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease with a left nephrostomy tube (a tube placed in the kidney to drain urine) placed in January. Physician's orders for Resident 57, dated February 12, 2024, included orders for staff to check the nephrostomy tube for patency…
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 · D2024-03-21 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of personnel files, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nurse aide performance evaluations were completed annually based on hire dates for one of three nurse aides reviewed (Nurse Aide 3). Findings include: A list of nurse aides provided by the facility revealed that based on their months and days of hire, an annual performance evaluation for Nurse Aide 3 was due February 13, 2024. As of March 21, 2024, there was no documented evidence that the annual performance evaluation was completed as required for Nurse Aide 3. Interview with the Human Resource Director on March 21, 2024, at 11:38 a.m. confirmed that she could not provide evidence that the annual performance evaluation for Nurse Aide 3 was completed as required. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of Licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3)(e)(1) Management. 28 Pa. Code 201.20(a)(c) Staff Development.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-02-05 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two of 43 residents reviewed (Residents 63, 78). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, which provides guidance and instructions for the completion of MDS assessments, dated October 2024, revealed that Section N was to be coded for medications received in the last seven days. Section N0415B was to be coded if the resident received an antianxiety medication in the previous seven days. N0415C was to be coded if the resident received an antidepressant medication in the last seven days. Section N0415E was to be coded if the resident received an anticoagulant (blood thinner) in the last seven days. Section N0415F was to be coded in the resident received an antibiotic in the last seven days. Physician's orders for Resident 63, dated October 24, 2024, included an order for the resident to receive 0.5 milligrams (mg) Lorazepam (anti-anxiety…
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 · Bcited before2024-03-21 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Minimum Data Set (MDS) validation report, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Care Area Assessment Process of comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments and comprehensive assessments were completed in the required time frame for three of 36 residents reviewed (Residents 17, 68, 71). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, indicated that for admission MDS assessments, the assessment completion date and the Care Area Assessment (CAA - the process of completing an in-depth assessment of triggered, potentially problematic care areas) completion date (Item V0200B2) were to be no later than the resident's admission date plus 13 calendar days and there must…
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 · Bcited before2024-03-21 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that quarterly Minimum Data Set assessments were completed within the required time frame for one of 36 residents reviewed (Resident 16). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, indicated that the assessment reference date (ARD - the last day of the assessment's look-back period) of a quarterly MDS assessment must be no more than 92 days after the ARD of the most recent assessment of any type, and the assessment was to have a completion date (Section Z0500B) that was no later than the ARD plus 14 calendar days. A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident 16 had an ARD of February 24, 2024, but it was not completed (Section Z0500B) until March 11, 2024, which was two days late. An…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,281 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,281 — penalty dated 2025-02-05
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI, KIMBERLY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 08/06/2021 |
| GORMAN, ROBIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2020 |
| HESS, SHERENE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2016 |
| KEITH, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2020 |
| AFFINITY HEALTH SERVICES | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/19/1996 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395778. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-30, 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.