Concordia At The Cedars
4363 Northern Pike, Monroeville, PA 15146 · Non profit - Corporation · 59 certified beds · (412) 373-3900 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 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 | 11.4% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 27.9% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger 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 | 3.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.7% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.2% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.1% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.6% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.9% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.9% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.7% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
61.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 103 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.3% 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 95 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 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 61.0%CMS range 48.1–69.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.9–15.1 | 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 | 65.3% | 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 | 66.3% | 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 | 64.2% | 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 | 95.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 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 | 5.6%CMS range 2.7–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 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 59 beds and averages 55.6 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess, document, and notify physicians of decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels for two of eight residents reviewed (Residents R3 and R5).Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control define diabetes as: Diabetes Mellitus is a chronic (long-lasting) health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy. Most of the food you eat is broken down into sugar (also called glucose) and released into your bloodstream. When your blood sugar goes up, it signals your pancreas to release insulin. Insulin acts like a key to let the blood sugar into your body's cells for use as energy. If you have diabetes, your body either doesn't make enough insulin or can't use the insulin it makes as well as it should. When there isn't enough insulin or cells stop responding to insulin, too much blood sugar stays in your bloodstream. Over time, that can cause serious health problems, such as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-28 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, review of facility provided documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to identify and/or investigate and/or report potential abuse for two of five residents (Resident R4 and R3). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation last reviewed on 1/16/25, indicated that it is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit abuse, neglect and exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. An investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, etc., occur. Written procedures include investigating different types of alleged violations. The facility will provide complete and thorough documentation of the investigation. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, manufacturers' instructions, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to prevent the potential for cross-contamination during medication administration for two of four residents (Resident R9 and R21). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Medication Administration, last reviewed on 1/26/25, indicated that medications are administered in accordance with professional standards of practice in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. During a medication administration completed by Registered Nurse Employee E1 the following was observed: Three oral medication tablets for Resident R9 were removed from the cards into RN Employee E1's ungloved left hand then placed into medication cup. Two oral medications tablets for Resident R21 were removed from the cards into RN Employee E1's ungloved left hand then placed into medication cup. During an interview on 2/27/25, at 8:35 a.m., RN Employee E1 confirmed that she had removed the tablets and placed into ungloved hand allowing for the potential of cross…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess and care plan for self-administration of medications for a cognitively intact resident who wished to do so for one of three residents (Residents R41). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Medication Administration dated 1/16/25, indicated to observe resident consumption of medication. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 12/11/24, included diagnoses of diabetes (a metabolic disorder in which the body has high sugar levels for prolonged periods of time) and heart failure (a progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles). Review of Section C: Cognitive Patterns revealed Resident R41 to be cognitively intact. During an observation on 2/27/25, at 10:19 a.m. Resident R41 was seated in bed. On his overbed table a medicine cup was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents were provided appropriate treatment and services to maintain bowel function for one of two residents (Resident R53). Findings include: Review of the clinical record revealed that Resident R53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of care needs) dated 8/9/24, included diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (disease of the heart characterized by irregular and often faster heartbeat), traumatic brain injury (a disruption in the normal function of the brain), and history of a stroke. Section GG: Functional Abilities substantial/maximal assistance with toileting. Section H: Bladder and Bowel indicated that Resident R53 was occasionally incontinent of bowel. Review of the physician orders dated 11/7/24, indicated that Resident R53 had orders for: -Milk of magnesia, give 30 ml by mouth every 72 hours as needed for Constipation no bowel…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-03-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food/beverages in accordance with professional standards for food safety on one of one nursing units. (3rd Floor Nursing Unit) Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Food Safety Requirements, dated 1/28/24, indicated food will be distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Foods and beverages shall be distributed in a manner to prevent contamination. Observation of the lunch meal of the 3rd Floor nursing unit, on 3/27/28, at 11:40 a.m. through 12:40 p.m., revealed the following: At 11:40 a.m. Residents were served meals from the steam table in the kitchenette to the tables in the dining room. All residents were served and eating at 12:05 p.m. At 12:05 p.m. the steam table was transported from the kitchenette onto the end of the nursing unit and set up in the middle hallway of the 300-318 resident rooms. There was and approximate distance of 35 inches from the steam table to the handrail of the wall. Plates…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-28 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor 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 review of facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide concern forms and grievance boxes assessable to residents and visitors from a wheelchair in the front lobby and on the third floor nursing unit, failed to have a grievance forms accessible on the third floor nursing unit, and failed to provide an opportunity for anonymous grievances in the front lobby and on the third floor nursing unit. Findings include: A review of the facility policy Resident and Family Grievances reviewed 1/19/23 and 1/28/24, indicated it is the policy of the facility to support each resident's and family member's right to voice grievances without discrimination, reprisal, or fear of discrimination. A grievance may be filed anonymously. During an observation on 3/26/24, at 8:15 a.m. revealed the grievance box in the front lobby is not accessible by residents and visitors in a wheelchair, and the grievance box is within sight of the receptionist. During an observation on 3/26/24, at 1:45 p.m. third floor nursing unit failed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy and clinical record reviews and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan for two of seven residents. (Residents R8, and R39) Findings include: The facility was unable to provide a policy regarding care planning. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, indicated that a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) is a brief screener that aids in detecting cognitive impairment. Scores from a BIMS assessment suggests the following distributions: 13 - 15: cognitively intact 8 - 12: moderately impaired 0 - 7: severe impairment A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (loss of thinking, remembering, 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.
- No harm found · C2026-02-26 · tag F0628 — widespreadProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide transfer notices to representatives of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for eleven of eleven months (February 2025 through January 2026).Findings include: Review of the facility policy Transfer and Discharge (including AMA) dated 1/15/26 with a prior review date of 1/16/25, indicated The facility's transfer/discharge notice will be provided to the resident and resident's representative in a language and manor in which they can understand. The facility will maintain evidence that the notice was sent to the Ombudsman. Federal Regulations further define emergency transfers as, When a resident is temporarily transferred on an emergency basis to an acute care facility, this type of transfer is considered to be a facility-initiated transfer. A request to review facility documents on 2/24/26, of the facility's compliance in notifying the State Ombudsman Office revealed the facility failed to provide documented evidence of notifying the State Ombudsman Office 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.
“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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CONCORDIA LUTHERAN MINISTRIES — 8 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONCORDIA LUTHERAN MINISTRIES OF PITTSBURGH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/15/2014 |
| ALSING, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| FALBO, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| FRNDAK, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2014 |
| FRNDAK-SUDER, KAY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/15/2014 |
| GLASSER, RANDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| HORTERT, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2016 |
| LYNCH, RYAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| REHKOPF, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| ROUDA, HOPE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| SULLIVAN, MELISSA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/17/2018 |
| WINDSOR, RITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| OSTER, MARC | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 13 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 $1.4M 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.
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
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 396059. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.