St Mary Center For Rehabilitation & Healthcare

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

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.

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.

43.3% 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 121 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 71.3% 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 101 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 109.5 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.81 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a safe, clean, and comfortable environment was maintained on one of four nursing units. ([NAME])Findings include:Observation on June 3, 2026, at 10:09 a.m., revealed that the handrail on the right side of the toilet in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was loose. In an interview on June 3, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., the Administrator confirmed the handrail in the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] needed to be repaired. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-29 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment in the main kitchen and on one of four nursing units. (St. [NAME])Findings include: On January 29, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. the following was observed: The mop sink located in the main kitchen's janitors' closet was clogged and with an accumulation of black sludge around the base of the sink. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the front sink was clogged with a brown residue. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3)(e)(2.1) Management

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food and maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy entitled, Labeling and Dating Food, dated June 9, 2025, revealed that prepared foods that were held at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or lower were to be discarded after seven days. Observations during the tour of the dietary department on December 16, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., revealed the following: In the juice box, there were two cups of prepackaged water that were directly touching apples in a bowl. In walk- in cooler 1, there was an opened large package of potato salad not dated. In walk-in cooler 2, there was a crinkled piece of wax paper between the food shelf and wall. The reach-in cooler had dried food debris on the outside of it. On the inside of the door there was a large area of a white dried liquid splattered along the length of it and there was white dried liquid along the inside bottom of the cooler. There was a pan of applesauce dated December 4,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-19 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  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 resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident had a call bell accessible to request assistance from staff for four of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 30, 68, 74, 102) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 30 had diagnoses that included dementia, cerebral infarction, acute respiratory failure and cataracts in both eyes. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 30 was able to make her needs known, required some assistance with activities of daily living and was at risk for falls. Resident 30's most recent care plan revealed the resident had a potential for falls and directed staff to ensure that Resident 30's call bell was within easy reach and to reinforce the need to use the call bell for assistance. Observations on December 16, 2025, at 11:17 a.m., revealed that Resident 30 was in bed and the call bell was on the floor under the bed out of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-19 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
  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 interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities in accordance with resident preferences and choice for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 6)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 6 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was alert and oriented. The assessment also indicated that it was very important for her to attend church; to do things with groups of people, the resident used a wheelchair and was dependent on staff for care. In an interview on December 17, 2025, at 10:40 a.m., Resident 6 expressed a concern that she could not attend church services on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., because staff did not wake her up early. Resident 6 was observed in a gown and was upset and anxious and stated that attending church was very important to her, and that she had told staff that she preferred to be dressed before…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-19 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the current status of three of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 1, 9, and 23)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 received oxygen therapy starting on November 30, 2025. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], incorrectly indicated in Section O (Special treatments, Procedures, Programs) that the resident was not receiving oxygen therapy during the previous seven days. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 9 had diagnoses that included schizophrenia. Review of the physician's orders revealed that Resident 9 had been receiving an antipsychotic medication, olanzapine, since August 30, 2025. Review of the October 2025 medication administration record revealed that Resident 9 received olanzapine during the MDS review period. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that section N (Medications) incorrectly…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to review the care plan within seven days after the completion of the comprehensive assessment for three of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 5, 30, 68)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 had a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on February 11, 2025, an annual MDS assessment completed on May 12, 2025, a quarterly MDS assessment completed on August 6, 2025, and a quarterly MDS assessment completed on November 6, 2025. There was a lack of documentation to support that the facility had conducted an interdisciplinary care plan meeting to review the care plan within the required timeframe. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 30 had a quarterly MDS assessment completed on April 15, 2025, a quarterly MDS assessment completed on July 23, 2025, a quarterly MDS assessment completed on August 15, 2025, and an annual MDS assessment completed on November 14, 2025. There was a lack of documentation to support that the facility had conducted an…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for two of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 14, 32) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 14 had diagnoses that included dementia and anxiety. A physician's order dated June 5, 2025, directed staff to administer a medication (midodrine hydrochloride) twice a day for hypotension (low blood pressure). Staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was greater than 130 millimeters mercury (mm/Hg) or higher. Review of Resident 14's Medication Administration Record revealed that staff withheld the medication when the resident's SBP was below 130 mm/Hg on three occasions in October 2025, 14 occasions in November 2025, and 10 occasions in December 2025. There was no documented evidence that the physician had instructed staff to…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-19 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
  Provide 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services to prevent a reduction in range of motion and/or to improve or maintain mobility on a consistent basis for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 112) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 112 had diagnoses that included muscle wasting and a history of falling. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for activities of daily living. Review of the physical therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE], revealed that the resident required staff assistance for transfers and ambulation. The physical therapist recommended a restorative nursing program for Resident 112 and documented that training and instruction was provided to the resident and primary caregivers. A restorative recommendation document dated November 10, 2025, indicated that the resident would benefit from an…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure 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 clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement safety interventions for three of five sampled residents at risk for falls. (Residents 68, 98, 112)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 68 had diagnoses that included dementia, and muscle wasting. Review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for bed mobility and transfers. Review of the Care Area assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 68 was at risk for falls. Review of the resident's care plan revealed that the resident had fall interventions to have their bed in the lowest position to the floor and fall mats in place on each side of the bed while the resident was in bed. Observations on December 16, 2025, at 11:27 a.m., revealed that Resident 68 was in bed and there were no fall mats on the floor. Subsequent observations on December 17, 2025, at…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CENTER MANAGEMENT GROUP — 16 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $2 paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in PA