Maple Ridge Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center
615 Wyoming Avenue, Kingston, PA 18704 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 92 certified beds · (570) 288-5496 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2024
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (23) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-08)
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 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 | 3.8% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 25.5% | 10.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.6% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.3% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.5% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.9% | 25.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.3% | 17.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.5% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.7% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.7% | 9.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.95 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.46 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
43.0% 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 107 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.2% 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 87 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 52% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 37% 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 | 43.0%CMS range 35.6–52.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.8%CMS range 8.8–15.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 63.2% | 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 | 55.2% | 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 | 52.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 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 | 1.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.6–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 92 beds and averages 89.6 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.76 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
23 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2025-05-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records, facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to consistently implement planned interventions and provide necessary treatment and services to prevent the worsening of a pressure ulcer for one resident out of four residents sampled for pressure ulcer care (Resident CR1) resulting in the worsening of a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to an unstageable pressure injury, constituting actual harm. Findings include: According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, the pressure ulcer best practice bundle incorporates three critical components in preventing pressure ulcers: Comprehensive skin assessment, Standardized pressure ulcer risk assessment, and care planning and implementation to address the areas of risk. The American College of Physicians (ACP) is a national organization of internists who specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of adults. Clinical Practice Guidelines indicate 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 · Ecited before2026-04-24 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set assessments (MDS) accurately reflected the clinical status of 3 of twenty residents reviewed (Residents 59, 45, and 66).Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 59 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury (an injury to the brain caused by an external force that can affect thinking, movement, and behavior), bipolar disorder (a mental health condition characterized by periods of elevated and depressed mood), and intellectual disability (limitations in mental functioning affecting learning and daily living skills). A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR, a legal document that records medications and treatments administered to a resident) dated October 2025 revealed the resident received a one-time intravenous hydration infusion (IV, fluids delivered directly into a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-24 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 clinical records, select facility policies, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to consistently monitor residents' nutritional and hydration status to timely identify declines, implement individualized and less invasive interventions, and ensure clinical justification prior to initiating invasive interventions for three of twenty residents reviewed (Residents 59, 45, and 66). This deficiency is cited as past noncompliance.Findings include: A review of a facility policy entitled Weight Assessment and Interventions last reviewed by the facility on May 20, 2025, indicated each resident's weight will be monitored by the interdisciplinary team and intervene for undesirable weight loss. Any weight change of percent or more since the last weight assessment will be retaken for confirmation and if the weight is verified, nursing will immediately notify the Registered Dietitian. The threshold for significant unplanned and undesired weight loss will be based on 5 percent weight…
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 before2026-04-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment by failing to maintain acceptable sound levels from the resident call bell system on one of three floors observed (Fourth Floor), which resulted in ongoing excessive noise that disrupted rest and comfort for three residents (Residents 6, 61, and 73).Findings include: A review of the policy titled Call System, Resident last review May 20, 2025, revealed residents are provided with a means to call staff for assistance through a communication system that directly calls a staff member or centralized workstation. The resident call system remains functional at all times. If audible communication is used, the volume is maintained at an audible level that can be easily heard. An interview with Employee 1 Nurse Aide, on April 21, 2026, revealed the call bell system malfunctioned on April 20, 2026, and, although repaired,…
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 · D2026-04-24 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to consistently provide restorative nursing services as planned to maintain mobility for one resident out of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 79).Findings include: Review of the facility Restorative Nursing Services Policy, last reviewed May 20, 2025, revealed that residents will receive restorative nursing care (RNP) as needed to help promote optimal safety and independence. Review of the policy revealed that the resident's restorative goals and objectives are individualized and resident-centered and are outlined in the resident's plan of care. A clinical record review revealed Resident 79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included osteoarthritis (a chronic joint condition in which the protective cartilage breaks down, resulting in pain, stiffness, and decreased movement) and abnormal posture. A review of Resident 79's Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS, a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the environment remained free from potential accident hazards related to the unsafe storage and access of medications for one of three nursing units reviewed (Unit 4) and for one of 20 residents sampled (Resident 58).Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications, last reviewed May 20, 2025, revealed it is the facility policy that medications are administered in a safe and timely manner and as prescribed. A review of the facility policy titled Self-Administration of Medications, last reviewed May 20, 2025, revealed it is the facility policy that self-administered medications are stored in a safe and secure place, which is not accessible by other residents. If safe storage is not possible in a resident's room, the medication of residents permitted to self-administer is stored on a central medication cart or in the medication room. A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-24 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of controlled drug shift count records, facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate controlled medication records for one of two medication carts observed.Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Controlled Substances, medications regulated by federal and state law due to their potential for misuse, dependency, or diversion. Accurate counting and documentation are required to ensure accountability and to prevent loss or misuse) last reviewed May 21, 2025, revealed controlled medications are counted at the end of each shift. The oncoming licensed nurse and the off-going licensed nurse are required to complete the count together. The oncoming licensed nurse signs the controlled substance record to acknowledge receipt, and the off-going licensed nurse signs to verify the count was completed and correct. A review of the facility Controlled Drug Key Exchange Audit for the fourth floor back hall nursing unit (Rooms 408 to 416) medication cart revealed that on April 20, 2026, 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 · D2026-04-24 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of select facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure timely physician notification of clinically significant abnormal laboratory results for one of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 87). This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance.Findings include: A review of the facility policy entitled Lab and Diagnostic Testing Clinical Protocol, last reviewed May 20, 2025, indicated the physician will identify, and order diagnostic testing and lab testing based on the resident's diagnostic and monitoring needs. The staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests. The laboratory, diagnostic radiology provider, or other testing sources will report test results to the facility. When test results are reported to the facility, a nurse will first review the results. Before contacting the physician, the person who is to communicate the results to a physician will gather, review, and organize the information and be prepared to discuss 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 before2025-09-03 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility policy, the minutes from facility Resident Council meetings, and grievances lodged with the facility, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to put forth sufficient efforts to promptly resolve resident complaints and grievances expressed during Resident Council meetings and written grievances, including those voiced by for two of ten residents reviewed. (Residents 1 and 2). Findings include:A review of the facility's Grievance Policy last revised on May 27, 2025, revealed that the resident has the right to voice grievances to the Center or other agency or entity (for example the State Ombudsman) that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. The Nursing Home Administrator will serve as the Grievance Officer who is responsible for overseeing the grievance process, receiving and tracking grievances through to their conclusion, leading any necessary investigations by the facility, maintaining the confidentiality of all information associated with grievances, 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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
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 clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was invited to participate in the care planning process for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 42). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include vascular dementia (reduced blood flow to the brain leading to cognitive decline) and polyosteoarthritis (inflammation and pain of five or more joints of the body). A review of the annual Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated May 7, 2025, revealed that Resident 42 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a tool within the Cognitive Section of the MDS that is used to assess the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall new information; a score of 13-15 indicates cognitively intact). During…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to render trauma informed care to a resident with a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for one out of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 18). Findings include: A review of Resident 78's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Depression. Resident 18 had been newly diagnosed on [DATE] with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD a mental health condition that's caused by an extremely stressful or terrifying event, either being part of it or witnessing it. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares, severe anxiety, and uncontrollable thoughts about the event). The resident's current care plan, in effect at the time of review on June 16, 2025, did not identify the resident's PTSD symptoms or triggers related to this diagnosis and resident specific interventions to meet the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 12 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-08 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive nutritional assessment and monitor resident weights consistently and accurately to timely identify changes in nutritional status and implement appropriate interventions to address weight loss for two of three residents reviewed for nutritional status and weight loss (Residents CR1 and A1). Findings included: A review of a facility policy entitled Nutritional Assessment last revised October 2024, revealed that the Registered Dietitian (RD), in conjunction with nursing staff and healthcare practitioners, will conduct a nutritional assessment for each resident upon admission (within current baseline assessment timeframes) and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition. As part of the comprehensive assessment, the nutritional assessment will be a systematic, multidisciplinary process that includes gathering and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, document review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards to prevent potential incidents for one resident (Resident A1) out of eight sampled residents. Findings include: A review of Resident A1's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included chronic pain and osteoarthritis (is inflammation of one or more joints and is the most common form of arthritis that affects joints in the hand, spine, knees, and hips). A review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment completed at specific times to identify resident care needs) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident A1's completed Brief Interview for Mental Status [(BIMS) a tool that assesses cognition, a tool to assess the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall new…
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 before2024-08-09 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of resident council meeting minutes and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility considered the views and recommendations raised during resident group meetings, including experiences expressed by five residents out of five during a resident group interview (Residents 18, 31, 36, 49, and 86), and failed to ensure that the facility acted upon grievances and concerns raised during resident group meetings for one resident out of the 21 sampled (Resident 22). Findings include: The facility must consider the views of a resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility. A review of Resident Council meeting minutes dated June 25, 2024, revealed that residents in attendance raised concerns regarding vegetarian food options such as vegetarian hotdogs and vegetarian bacon. A review of the facility's June 2024 grievance log revealed no documentation of the concerns residents raised regarding the resident council…
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 · E2024-08-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a person-centered care plan to meet each resident's needs for four of 21 sampled residents (Residents 7, 8, 64, and 66). Findings including: Review of Resident 8's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include heart failure (chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), and the presence of a pacemaker (small battery-powered device that prevents the heart from beating too slowly, surgically placed under the skin near the collar bone). A review of the resident's current comprehensive care plan, conducted during the survey ending August 9, 2024, failed to include the presence of a pacemaker. The care plan did not include how the facility would monitor the pacemaker or evaluate the resident for symptoms related to the pacemaker not properly functioning. Interview with the director of nursing on August 8,…
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 · E2024-08-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and revised with participation of the resident and the resident's representative for three residents out of 21 sampled (Residents 15, 31, and 49). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) and cerebral infarction (brain damage that results from a lack of blood). A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated May 6, 2024, revealed that Resident 15 is cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 (Brief Interview for Mental Status- a tool within the Cognitive Section of the MDS that is used to assess the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register…
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 before2024-08-09 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 observation, review of clinical records, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to timely identify and assess a resident's weight loss, implement individualized nutritional support measures to maintain or improve nutritional parameters, and to timely consult with the physician and notify the resident of a significant weight loss for one resident (Resident 22) and failed to implement a planned nutrition intervention in response to weight loss for one resident (Resident 142) of seven sampled residents. Findings include: A review of facility policy entitled Weight Management Guideline, last reviewed by the facility on May 1, 2024, is the identification of weight loss (planned, or unplanned) to determine accurate weight with supporting documentation to prevent, monitor, or intervene with undesirable weight. Weight variances include weight change of 5 Ibs or weight change of 3 Ibs if weight less than 100 Ibs. If variance is noted, staff will…
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 · E2024-08-09 · 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 clinical records, facility provided documents, facility's planned cycle menu, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a pre-planned nutritionally adequate menu for one resident out of 21 residents sampled (Resident 22). Findings include: Review of Resident 22's clinical record revealed admission to the facility on April 24, 2024, with diagnoses to have included gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cerebral atherosclerosis (a build-up of plaques in the blood vessels of the brain). A review of an April 29, 2024, admission Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care), revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, with a BIMS score (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a tool to assess cognitive function) of 14. A review of facility document entitled Nutritional Risk Assessment/Full - V4 dated April 30, 2024, indicating resident 22 has distinct food preferences, and is…
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 · D2024-08-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 39) was free from physical abuse, perpetrated by another resident (Resident CR4). Findings include: A review of facility policy titled Abuse of Residents, last reviewed by the facility on May 1, 2024, revealed it is the facility policy that acts of physical abuse directed against residents are absolutely prohibited. The policy indicates that each resident has the right to be free from physical abuse and shall not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including but not limited to staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, family members, friends, or other individuals. The policy defines physical abuse as including but not limited to hitting, slapping, punching, or kicking. A clinical record review revealed Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include dementia (a condition…
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 before2024-08-09 · 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 clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 21 sampled (Resident 142). Findings include: A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 142 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident 142's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated in Section K0200 Height and Weight that the resident had a height of 62 inches and weighed 116 pounds. However, review of the resident's weight record revealed that on July 27, 2024 (the date of admission) the resident weighed 115.6 pounds. On July 29, 2024 (the most recent weight prior to the admission MDS assessment), the resident weighed 108.6 pounds. Interview with the facility's registered dietitian (RD) on August 9, 2024, at approximately 12:30 PM, confirmed…
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 · F2024-07-18 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly dispose of garbage and refuse Findings include: An observation July 18, 2024, at 8 AM and again at 12 P.M. revealed that the facility's two large trash dumpsters, containing bags garbage and trash, were not covered. The lids to both garbage dumpsters were observed opened during each observation. During an interview July 18, 2024 at approximately 2:30 P.M., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the dumpsters lids should be closed. 28 Pa Code 201.18 (e)(2.1) Management
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a clean and homelike resident environment on two of the three floors of the facility (the second, third floor and forth floor) and failed to maintain resident care equipment in clean and sanitary manner. Findings Include: An observation July 18, 2024 at 9 A.M. revealed a black substance on the air vent above the second floor nurses station, and two adjacent ceiling tiles. Observation on May 20, 2023, at 11:50 a.m. revealed that the floor of the second-floor community television and dining area was sticky floor and the feeling of resistance when lifting feet off of the floor to walk throughout the area. Dried liquid stains and food crumbs were observed in the refrigerator in the room. Liquid stains and food and paper debris were observed on the counter. Littered paper and food debris were observed in the drawers under the counter. Dried food and liquid…
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 · E2024-05-15 · tag F0574 — patternThe resident has the right to receive notices in a format and a language he or she understands.
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 clinical records, guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures designed to protect residents from unacceptable practices of disenrolling residents from their Medicare health plans by ensuring all risks of disenrolling are explained, both verbally and in writing, and the residents are found to be competent to make informed decisions for seven of 13 reviewed the facility disenrolled from Medicare health plans (Resident CR1, 13, 50, 59, 61, 75, and 81). Finding include: A review of a CMS guidance entitled Memo to Long Term Care (LTC) Facilities on Medicare Health Plan Enrollment dated [DATE] revealed that CMS continues to hear reports of the unacceptable practice of nursing facilities or skilled nursing facilities (collectively, long-term care or LTC facilities) disenrolling beneficiaries from Medicare health plans (Medicare Advantage…
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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-04-08
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CENTURY HEALTHCARE — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 1.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 1.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CENTURY III PENNSYLVANIA HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2023 |
| CENTURY III TBD HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| KULANU OC TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| DOBKIN, ARI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| KLEIN, EFRAIM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| STRIMBU, TINA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| RALLEY 2 LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/04/2025 |
| BERDUGO, SHAI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/04/2025 |
| MERA, MARIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| OPIARY, ALYSSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/09/2025 |
| ISRAEL, LEVI | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| SINGER, SIMON | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 79% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $381K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395345. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-24, 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.