Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill
801 Ridge Pike, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444 · Non profit - Corporation · 45 certified beds · (610) 825-6100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.0% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.1% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 0.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 38.2% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.5% | 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 | 4.0% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.7% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.9% | 17.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.9% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.5% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 5.31 | 1.62 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.87 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
34.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 28.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 32 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 1.00 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 34.3%CMS range 22.6–47.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.5–14.6 | 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 | 28.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 18.8% | 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 | 25.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 7.7% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.6–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.79 | 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 45 beds and averages 46.4 residents a day — about 103% occupied, or roughly -1 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 4.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.04 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.80 is at or above 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 4.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.95 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.21 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of facility policy and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that food stored in the refrigerator and freezer was stored by professional standards for food service safety. Findings Include:The facility policy titled Production, Purchasing, Storage - Food and Supply Storage Procedure, last revised in January 2024, states: All food, non-food items, and supplies used in food preparation shall be stored in such a manner as to prevent contamination and to maintain the safety and wholesomeness of the food for human consumption. Under the procedures section, it further specifies: Most, but not all, products contain an expiration date. The words 'sell-by,' 'best-by,' 'enjoy-by,' or 'use-by' should precede the date. The 'sell-by' date is the last date that food can be sold or consumed; do not sell products in the retail area or place them on patient trays/resident plates past the date on the product. Food past the 'use-by,' 'sell-by,' 'best-by,' or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the Resident Council meeting and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the grievance process was posted in a location visible and understandable to residents, grievance forms were not readily available for residents to complete for 7 out of 7 residents reviewed (Residents R26, R18, R39, R30, R42, R14 and R23). During the Resident Council meeting held on July 15, 2025, at 1:30 PM, seven alert and oriented residents (R26, R18, R39, R30, R42, R14, and R23) indicated that they were unaware of how to file a grievance if they had a concern. When Resident R26 was asked if she knew the grievance procedure, she responded that she would talk to the receptionist. An interview with Employee E1, the Administrator, on July 17, 2025, at 10:03 AM, confirmed that E1 serves as the facility's grievance officer. However, there was no posting in the building available to communicate to the residents of this. Grievance forms were not available on the nursing unit nor in the building for residents to file a grievance. Observation of the wall…
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 · D2025-07-17 · 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
Number of residents sampled:13Number of residents cited:1 Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and resident representative received written notice of the facility bed-hold policy at the time of a facility-initiated transfer and the reason for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand for one of 13 residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident R54)Findings include:Review of nursing note for Resident R54, dated May 3, 2025, revealed that Resident R54 was transferred to hospital emergency room for evaluation after a fall.Review of Resident R54's clinical record revealed that there was no documented evidence that the resident and his representative were provided with a written notice of the facility bed-hold policy at the time of Resident R54's facility-initiated transfer to the hospital.Further review of Resident R54's clinical record revealed that there was no documented evidence that the resident and his representative were provided the reason for the move in writing 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 · D2025-07-17 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled:13Number of residents cited:1Based on review of facility policies, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a written summary of the baseline care plan was provided to the resident and/or the resident's representative for one of 13 residents reviewed (Residents R3).Findings include:Review of Resident R3's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to facility on May 30, 2025.Interview with Resident R3's representative on July 14, 2025, stated the facility did not provide a copy of the baseline care plan after the admission.Review of the clinical record revealed no documented evidence that resident and/or the resident's representative received a written summary of the baseline care plan including physician orders, dietary orders and social service goals.Further review of the care plan revealed no documented evidence that the resident representative received a written summary of the baseline care plan.A request was made to the Infection Control Nurse on July 17, 2025, for the evidence that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment was free of accidents and hazards for a cognitively impaired resident with a history of utilizing razors unsupervised and resulting in a skin abrasion for 1 out of 13 residents reviewed (Resident R8). Findings include: Review of the July 2024 physician orders for the resident included the following diagnosis: arthritis (inflammation of the joints); dependence on wheelchair; chronic obstruction pulmonary disorder (COPD-a term for a group of progressive lung and airway diseases that cause breathing difficulties); dementia (a general term for a decline in cognitive function that affects daily life, including memory, reasoning and language skills); encephalopathy (a broad term for any disease or disorder that affects the brain function or structure); cognitive communication deficit (difficulties in communication that arise from impaired cognitive functions such as attention, memory, reasoning and problem solving); depression (a mood…
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 · D2025-07-17 · 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 interviews and the review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's weights, were completed in a timely manner for 1 out of 13 residents (Resident R4).Findings include:Review of the undated policy, Monitoring Resident Weight Change, indicated that accurate weight measurements are essential for assessing nutritional status, calculating doses of drugs, indicating fluid status, accurate minimum data set documentation (MDS- a periodic assessment of a resident's needs), and care planning. Review of the July 2025 physician orders for Resident R4 included the following diagnosis: dysphagia (difficulty swallowing); cerebral infarction (a stroke); hypertension (high blood pressure); diabetes (a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugars); glaucoma (a group of eye diseases that cause vision, loss and blindness), and dementia (a general term for a decline in cognitive function that affects daily life, including memory, reasoning and language skills).Review of a note from the clinical dietician (Employee E9) dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled:13Number of residents cited:1Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pain management in accordance with professional standards for one of 13 residents reviewed (Resident R7).Findings include:Review of an undated facility policy Pain Assessment & Management Record Procedure, revealed that Integrative Pain Care and Alternative Interventions - To be used and documented in conjunction with oral medications. The following integrative pain interventions may be documented in the electronic chatting system and on the eMAR (electronic Medication Administration Record) with PRN (as needed) Medication Administration. Alternate interventions will also be documented in the IDPN (interdisciplinary progress notes) as needed.1. Positioning/rest2. Compassionate touch/massage3. Cold4. Heat5. Distraction/humor/activity6. Music7. Aromatherapy8. Spirituality/prayer9. Healing touch10. One on one11. Quiet…
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 · D2025-07-17 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled:1Number of residents cited:1Facility did provide dialysis site was assessed accord to PSP. Based on clinical record review, observations, policy review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to monitor residents' dialysis (hemodialysis/ a process of removing waste products and excess water from the body) site for a resident receiving hemodialysis for one of one resident on dialysis (Residents 40).Findings include:Review of an undated facility policy Managing Residents Receiving Hemodialysis, revealed, Masonic Village licensed nurses will provide clinical monitoring and care for theresident which includes:1. Maintaining patency of and caring for the access areaa. Fistula or graft(1) Wash the antibacterial soap each day, and always before dialysis. Discourage the resident from scratching at skin or picking scabs that may form.(2) Monitor for redness, a feeling of excess warmth, or the beginning of a pustule on the access area.(3) Check bruit and thrill every shift and document in the resident's EHR.(4) Do not use arm with dialysis access…
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 before2025-07-17 · 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 observations and staff interviews, it was determined that facility did not ensure that opened medications were properly labeled and stored with the date that the medication was opened for one of three medication carts reviewed and two of two medication room reviewed. (Wisteria medication cart on the Healthcare unit).Findings Include:Observation of medication administration conducted by Licensed Nurse, Employee E10, on July 16, 2025, at 9:53 a.m. revealed that Resident R55 was waiting to receive her medication by the Wisteria medication cart on the nursing care unit. Employee E10 finished preparing the medication and entered Resident R55's room, leaving the resident sitting in the hallway by the medication cart.Employee E10 placed all of Resident R55's medications on a tray located by the window inside the resident's room and then left the room to get the resident. A total of six medications were left unattended from 9:53 a.m. to 9:54 a.m. Resident R55 had a roommate, Resident R34 who was awake and sitting in a wheelchair near the closet inside the room.Observation of 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 · D2025-07-17 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 documents, resident interviews, meal tray observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe temperature meal during lunch for one of one meal observation. Findings Include:The facility policy titled, MV [NAME] Hill Hot Liquids/lids Procedures- for dining rooms (dietary) staff last revised January 2024, stated temperatures for all Hot liquids coming from the kitchen must be below (150 degrees)served all hot liquids with lids on cups.On July 15, 2025, at 12:10 p.m., observations were conducted in the main dining room, where approximately 15 residents were eating lunch and dietary aides were serving lunch to them, starting with pouring pea soup. Dietary Aide, Employee E6, was observed pouring pea soup into three different bowls and directly taking them to three residents (R19, R25, R46) without allowing them to cool off.The surveyor asked, What is the serving temperature for hot liquids? It was revealed by the Dietary Director, Employee E5,…
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 before2024-09-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, review of clinical record, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance resulting in a fall for one of two residents reviewed for falls (Resident R16). Findings Include: Review of Resident R16's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - federally mandated resident assessment and care screening) dated February 7, 2024, revealed the resident was cognitively intact had diagnoses of hemiplegia or hemiparesis and muscle weakness. Continued review of Resident R16's MDS Section GG - Functional Abilities and Goals revealed the resident had impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremity. Review of Resident R16's comprehensive care plan dated February 7, 2024, revealed the resident was at risks for falls related to Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA - an obstruction or bleed from a blood vessel of the brain causing brain damage) with left-sided weakness, ataxia (a condition that affects muscle coordination and can cause clumsy movements and balance problems)/spastic movements and history…
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 before2024-09-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, facility documentation, facility policy review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and label drug according to professional standards of practice on one of one medication room. (Second Floor) Findings include: Review of facility policy provided, titled Medication Storage from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare, and Medicaid Services, revealed medications and biologicals that are stored in medication rooms, carts, boxes, and refrigerators will be maintained within secured locks and accessible only to designated staff. A sufficient detailed record of receipt and disposition of controlled medications are to be maintained to enable an accurate reconciliation. Review of the medication Lorazepam's insert revealed risks of use with opioids including Lorazapam may result in profound sedation, respiratory depression, coma, and death. Lorazepam has a potential for abuse and may lead to dependence. Observation of the only medication room shared within three nursing units on the facility second floor 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 · Dcited before2024-09-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were followed during medication pass between two resident and by implementing proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when practicing enhanced barrier precautions during care for three of 12 residents reviewed. (Resident R32, R42 and R5) Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Infection Prevention and Control revealed that in accordance with state and federal guidance the facility has established and will maintain, and infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections this policy defines our overarching infection prevention and control program. Further review of this policy revealed hand hygiene a general term that applies to washing hands with water or thoroughly applying an alcohol-based…
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 before2024-08-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, observations, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of five residents reviewed. (Resident R1) Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Transmission Prevention and Interventions undated states The facility has established and will maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. iii. Droplet precautions 1. These precautions protect staff, visitors, and other residents from droplets that are expelled during coughing, sneezing, or talking. 2. Masks are to be worn when working in close proximity to the resident. 3. Specific guidelines may be needed during 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MASONIC VILLAGES OF THE GRAND LODGE OF PENNSYLVANIA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2013 |
| BAHNEY, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| BAKER, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| BRINK, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| CEPIELIK, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| DOWNS, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| HEESE, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| KRAUS, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| MILLER, GLENN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| OCKOVIC, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| ROUP, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| SAYLOR, STANLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| SNYDER, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| SPENCE, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| WHEELER, FREDERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/27/2025 |
| FORMICA, PAMELA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| KINGSBURY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| HIRSCH, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/25/2022 |
| JONES, DENISE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/06/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
This home reported $1.9M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 395818. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-17, 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.