No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

St Joseph's Manor

1616 Huntingdon Pike, Meadowbrook, PA 19046 · Non profit - Corporation · 296 certified beds · (215) 938-4000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (215) 938-4000 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • 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)
Worth asking about
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 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

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
670 Welsh Rd · (215) 938-8731 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
650 Welsh Rd · (215) 947-2600 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Meadow Brook · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1551 Huntingdon Pike · (215) 947-8168

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased21.6%16.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.7%6.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%1.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.3%10.8%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.3%3.1%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened20.1%17.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.9%20.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine94.1%93.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.0%4.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.9%25.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.1%17.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.4%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine26.2%68.7%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission27.6%22.5%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.7%9.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.941.621.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.851.181.80better

§ 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.

64.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 334 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

64.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
43.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.24U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 43.1% 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 269 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF64.6%CMS range 60.0–68.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.2%CMS range 8.2–14.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge43.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge52.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge40.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified89.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting98.1%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.3%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened6.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.1%CMS range 3.1–9.07.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.701.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.80
RN hours/ resident / day
0.82
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.40
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.03
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.49
RN hoursweekends
36.3%
Total nursing turnover
27.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 296 beds and averages 220.3 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 76 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.40 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 3.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.22 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-09)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-02-13)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-09 · 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 observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen, two of seven resident pantries (Green Valley and the Meadows), and one of seven resident dining service areas (Green Valley). Findings include:Observation during the tour of the main kitchen, the [NAME] Valley resident serving area, and the [NAME] Valley resident pantry on January 6, 2026, beginning at 10:15 a.m., revealed the following: In the main kitchen, the floor mixer was in use and had areas of peeled paint on the front and top of the motorhead above the mixing bowl. In the [NAME] Valley resident dining service area refrigerator, there were four cups of yogurt with a use-by date of January 2, 2026. In the [NAME] Valley resident pantry refrigerator there was a carton of milk with a use-by date of January 4, 2026, and one cup of yogurt with a use-by date of January 2, 2026.Observation of the Meadows resident pantry refrigerator on January 7, 2026, at 11:23 a.m., revealed one large carton of apple juice with a use-by date of December 10,…

    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 · D2026-01-09 · 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 complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two of 36 sampled residents. (Residents 4 and 13)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 4 had diagnoses that included fibromyalgia (widespread body pain and fatigue) and depression. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Sections P (Restraints and Alarms) incorrectly indicated that the resident used a restraint, but less than daily. There was no documentation in the clinical record that indicated Resident 4 used any type of restraint during the review period. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 13 had diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease and chronic embolism. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Section N (Medications) incorrectly indicated that the resident was receiving an anticoagulant medication during the previous seven days. There was no documented 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate grooming and hygiene for three of 36 sampled residents. (Residents 2, 102, and 245)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness, end stage renal disease, and depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 2 required maximum assistance with hygiene and self-care and had no cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan revealed that staff were to assist the resident with hygiene and self-care, including nail care on bath day and as necessary. On January 6, 2025, at 12:46 p.m., the resident was observed in his room. His nails were long and dirty. He stated that he preferred short clean nails and that staff had not offered to provide nail care recently. On January 8, 2026, at 11:50 a.m., the resident was observed in his wheelchair. His nails remained…

    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 · Dcited before2026-01-09 · 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

    Based on a clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for three of 37 sampled residents. (Residents 5, 29 and 201)684Based on a clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for three of 37 sampled residents. (Residents 5, 29 and 201)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, hypertensive chronic kidney disease, and type II diabetes. A physician's order dated August 21, 2024, directed staff to administer a blood pressure medication (atenolol) one time a day. The physician ordered that staff not administer the medication if the resident's heart rate was less than 55 beats per minute. Review of Resident 5's Medication Administration Records (MAR) for October, November, and December of 2025, revealed that the staff administered atenolol once each in October and November, and twice in December when Resident's 5's heart rate was less than 55 beats per minute.Clinical…

    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 · D2026-01-09 · 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, facility documentation review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement safety interventions for one of eight sampled residents at risk for falls. (Resident 15)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 15 had diagnoses that included abnormality of gait and mobility, muscle weakness, and difficulty in walking. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 15 required staff assistance for bed mobility and transfers. Review of facility documentation dated September 10, 2025, revealed the resident was found on the floor after rolling out of bed, with a new intervention to place falls mats on both sides of the bed. Review of the care plan identified that the resident was at risk for falls related to gait dysfunction with an intervention that staff were to place fall mats on both sides of the bed to prevent injury. Observations on January 6, 2026, at 11:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and January 7, 2026,…

    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 · D2025-04-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify each resident's responsible party of a significant weight loss for two of eight sampled residents. (Residents CL1 and 3) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Weight Management Guidelines, dated January 6, 2025, revealed that nursing staff were to report unexplained significant weight changes to the family/responsible party. Clinical record review revealed that Resident CL1 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident was rarely understood. Review of the resident's weights revealed that on February 6, 2025, the resident weighed 178.6 pounds (lbs). On March 2, 2025, Resident CL1 weighed 167.8 lbs, which was confirmed with a reweigh on March 4, 2025. This reflected a six percent weight loss in one month. There was no documented evidence that Resident…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-25 · 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

    Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for two of eight sampled residents. (Residents 3 and 5) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure). A physician's order dated March 12, 2025, directed staff to administer a medication (lisinopril) one time a day for hypertension. Staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's blood pressure (BP) was less than 110 over 65 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). Review of Resident 3's medication administration records (MARs) revealed that staff administered the medication one time in March 2025, and two times in April 2025, when the resident's BP was less than 110 over 65 mm/Hg. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 had diagnoses that included hypertension. On April 17, 2025, the physician ordered staff to administer a medicine (metoprolol tartrate) two times a day for hypertension. Staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood…

    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 · Fcited before2025-02-13 · 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 review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve foods in a sanitary manner in the dietary department to prevent the potential for foodborne illness. Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled Food Storage, last reviewed March 8, 2024, revealed that food was to be stored immediately after receipt and maintained in a manner to prevent damage, spoilage, infestation, or bacterial contamination. Observation during the initial kitchen tour on February 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., revealed the following: There was debris on the bottom of the stand up ice cream freezer. There were four bins of dry goods that included white rice, flour, thickened liquid product, sugar and brown rice. The scoops for the dry goods were stored inside the bins on top of the dry goods. There was a container of whipped cream in a refrigerator that was not labeled or dated. In the dry goods storage room at 10:06 a.m, there was a bag of cereal that had been opened and re-sealed, but was not labeled or dated. There was also…

    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 · F2025-02-13 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespread
    Conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility assessment and dietary policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the facility wide assessment to ensure that there was an inventory of resources. These resources included an adequate supply of sustenance, food and beverages, in the event of an emergency/disaster for residents and staff. Findings include: Review of the facility assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the facility was to maintain and manage a documented inventory of resources that may be needed in an emergency. There was a reference in the facility assessment to the facility emergency preparedness plan. Review of the current, referenced emergency preparedness plan revealed, the facility was to ensure that adequate sustenance needs for residents and staff were to be available during an emergency. In addition, review of the policy entitled Food and Nutrition Disaster Plan, last reviewed March 8, 2024, revealed that the purpose was to allow for advance planning in possible…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-02 · 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 ensure that physicians' orders were implemented for three of 36 sampled residents. (Resident 73, 185, 446) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 73 had diagnoses that included dementia and muscle weakness. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated January 10, 2024, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired and required substantial assistance for toileting. A physician's order dated November 5, 2019, directed staff to administer 30 milliliters (ml) of a laxative (milk of magnesia) if the resident did not have a bowel movement in two days, and then an enema (Fleet's) the next day if the resident still had no bowel movement. A review of the documentation revealed that no bowel movements were recorded from January 17 through 22, and from January 24 through 30, 2024. According to the Medication Administration Record (MAR) there was no documented evidence that laxatives or enemas…

    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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
WOZNIAK, GREGORYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/15/2024
FALLON, BRIANIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 08/21/2023
HARRIS, THOMASIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/01/2024
KEEN, MICHAELIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2020
PEOPLES, CRISTINAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2021
BROOKS, RONALDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/07/2008
DUPREE, BETHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2017
ITO, ELLYNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2017
LEZZI, S NICHOLASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2014
LYNCH, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/07/2008
MCELWAIN, GUYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/07/2008
MCKINNES, CHARLOTTEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2013
RAGG, JOSEPHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/01/2019
RODGERS, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2020
SASSO, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/07/2008
WALSH, ROBYNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/07/2008
FRIEL, DONALDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/19/2003

CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 17 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.

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.

$27.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-11.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$3.6M
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 10%Medicare 5%Other / private 85%

This home reported $3.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 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

$368per resident / day
operating cost
$11,173per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$328per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Pennsylvania
$11,954/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,688/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,480/mo
Assisted living

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 395006. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-09, 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.

What to do next