Saint Mary's Villa Nursing Hom
516 St. Mary's Villa Road, Moscow, PA 18444 · Non profit - Corporation · 112 certified beds · (570) 842-7621 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.8% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.8% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.9% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.7% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.6% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.0% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.6% | 22.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.3% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
33.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 130 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 32.4% 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 102 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 33.2%CMS range 26.6–45.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 8.8–15.2 | 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 | 32.4% | 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 | 20.6% | 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 | 26.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.6% | 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 | 9.2%CMS range 6.3–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 112 beds and averages 93.9 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 18 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.31 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.97 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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.
18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of select facility policy, controlled drug records, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate controlled drug records and failed to implement pharmacy procedures for timely disposition of resident medications to prevent misuse, diversion (unauthorized use or theft), or accidental exposure for one of three closed records reviewed (Resident 93).Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled, Disposition of Medications last reviewed by the facility on February 27, 2025, revealed guidance regarding disposition of medications. The policy explained a process to implement safe and responsible disposition practices of discontinued medications to protect residents and staff from improper diversion or accidental exposure. Further it is indicated medications discontinued by the prescriber order, residents' death, or discharge are either to be destroyed on site or return to the pharmacy for destruction. Controlled substances must be destroyed in the facility using the drug disposal system…
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 · D2025-09-12 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to honor and incorporate the resident's expressed preferences and choices into the care planning process for one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 5). Findings include: A review of Resident 5's clinical record revealed Resident 5 was admitted to the facility August 13, 2013, with diagnoses to include lobar pneumonia (infection that inflames the air sacs in one or both lungs). A review of a Resident 5's quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care), dated August 8, 2025, revealed Resident 5 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13 (brief interview for mental status, a tool to assess the residents attention, orientation and ability to register and recall new information, a score of 13-15 indicates intact cognition). A review of the comprehensive care planning policy last reviewed by the facility on February 27, 2025, revealed the facility…
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 · D2025-09-12 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, employee personnel files and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to fully develop and implement procedures to fully screen four employees out of five to ensure they were eligible for employment in a long term care nursing care facility. (Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4). Findings include: A review of the facility's Resident Abuse policy last reviewed by the facility February 27, 2025, revealed the requirement for screening potential employees included obtaining references from the most recent or previous employer. Review of employee personnel files revealed the following: Employee 1 (Porter): Hired on May 19, 2025. The application listed previous employers, but there was no documentation showing the facility had contacted the most recent former employer to fully screen the individual to ensure the individual was eligible for employment in a long term care nursing facility. Employee 2 (Licensed Practical Nurse): Hired on July 7, 2025. The application listed previous employers, but there was no documentation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-12 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, a review of clinical records, resident observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) for two of 18 residents sampled (Resident 4 & Resident 8).Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing the Minimum Data Set (MDS a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated October 2024, requires the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status, a registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals, and the assessment process includes direct observation, as well as communication with the resident and direct care staff on all shifts. A review of the clinical record revealed Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses 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 · D2025-09-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 select facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized plan to meet the toileting needs of one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 5).Findings include: A review of facility policy titled 'Bowel & Bladder Toileting Plan' reviewed on February 27, 2025, revealed that all residents will be assessed on admission, readmission and change of condition according to the bowel and bladder patterning criteria. Upon completion of the assessment, individualized bowel and bladder program(s) will be initiated for each resident as indicated. A review of the policy titled 'Foley Catheter Procedure When a Resident is admitted With Foley in Place' describes a facility policy stating any resident who enters the facility with a catheter will be evaluated upon admission for the necessity of maintaining or removing the catheter. A review of Resident 5's clinical record revealed Resident 5 was admitted to the facility August…
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 · D2025-09-12 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized pain management program consistent with professional standards of practice, including the use of non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering as-needed narcotic pain medication, and failed to follow physician orders for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident 6).Findings include: According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Interagency Task Force, Pain Management Best Practices Final Report (May 6, 2021), effective pain treatment plans should be individualized and patient-centered, with measurable outcomes focusing on quality of life (QOL), improved functionality, and the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL's basic self-care tasks such as bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting). Best practice emphasizes multimodal approaches (the use of multiple methods including medications, physical therapy, and other interventions) and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-15 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
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 incorporate the recommendations from the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II determination and the PASRR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care for one of one resident reviewed (Resident 77). Findings include: Review of clinical record of Resident 77 revealed diagnoses to include Down's syndrome, also known as trisomy 21, is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21. It is typically associated with physical growth delays, mild to moderate intellectual disability, and characteristic facial features. The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50, equivalent to the mental ability of an 8- or 9-year-old child). Further review of Resident 77's clinical record revealed a PASARR Level I (federally required assessment to help ensure that all individuals with serious mental disorders and/or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-15 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records and controlled drug records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate accounting of controlled medications for one resident of 18 residents sampled (Resident 48). Finding include: A review of the clinical record revealed Resident 48 had a physician's order dated October 18, 2024, for Tramadol HCl oral tablet 50 mg (an opioid pain medication), give one tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for moderate pain identified by a scale of 5-7 (pain scale, 1-10, 1 least amount of pain and 10 most amount of pain). A review of the controlled substance record accounting for the above narcotic medication revealed that on October 19, 2024, at 9:00 AM, and October 23, 2024, at 2:40 PM, nursing staff signed out a dose of the resident's supply of Tramadol 50 mg. However, the administration of the controlled drug to the resident was not recorded on the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) on those dates and times. A physician order dated October 28, 2024, was noted for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness in two of four resident pantries. Findings include: Food safety and inspection standards for safe food handling indicate that everything that comes in contact with food must be kept clean and food that is mishandled can lead to foodborne illness. Safe steps in food handling, cooking, and storage are essential in preventing foodborne illness. You cannot always see, smell, or taste harmful bacteria that may cause illness according to the USDA (The United States Department of Agriculture, also known as the Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to food). Observation of the resident food pantry located on the second floor, Extension 31, on November 13, 2024, at 10:50 AM, revealed that inside the refrigerator there was one opened…
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 · D2024-07-02 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 review of clinical records, select facility policy, and grievances lodged with the facility and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's interested representative of a significant change in condition for one resident out of seven sampled (Resident A1). Findings include: A review of the facility policy entitled notification of the responsible party on hospital transfers, dated as reviewed by the facility January 2024, revealed that the the facility will notify a resident's responsible party of a hospital transfer once the order has been obtained from the physician to transfer. The facility will initiate transfer when it is determined that the cannot provide services required for the resident and or if the resident and or the responsible party requests the hospital transfer be initiated The corresponding procedures were noted as: The facility will notify the incapable residents responsible party of an upcoming transfer to the hospital and or a change…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to follow physician orders for bowel protocol for two residents out of two sampled (Residents 72 and 74) to promote normal bowel activity to the extent practicable. Findings include: According to the American Academy of Family Physicians {The American Academy of Family Physicians is one of the largest medical organizations in the US founded to promote the science and art of family medicine} the primary goal of constipation management should be symptom improvement, and the secondary goal should be the passage of soft, formed stool without straining at least three times per week). The facility policy titled Bowel Management / Laxative Protocol, last reviewed by the facility March, 2023, indicated that if there is no bowel activity noted for 3 days, the laxative protocol will be implemented by the charge nurse and nutritional interventions to improve natural bowel function may be…
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 · E2023-11-30 · 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 a review of the facility's infection control tracking logs and policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a comprehensive program to monitor the development and spread of infections within the facility and plan preventative measures accordingly. Findings include: A review of the current facility policy titled Infection Control Program, dated July 27, 2023, revealed that the program's primary objective is to provide an effective facility-wide program for the surveillance, prevention, and control of infection. The program monitors the rates of healthcare-associated infections, uses systems to collect and analyze data, and organizes activities to prevent and control infections in residents and personnel. A review of the facility's infection control data revealed that the facility's infection control tracking did not reflect evidence of the consistent utilization of a comprehensive tracking system to monitor and investigate the causes of all types of infections. There was no evidence the facility was using an infection control tracking…
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 · D2023-11-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, a review of clinical records and select facility policy, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide necessary care and services to prevent the development of a pressure sore for one resident (Resident 9) out of 19 sampled residents. Findings include: According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, the pressure ulcer best practice bundle incorporates three critical components in preventing pressure ulcers: Comprehensive skin assessment, Standardized pressure ulcer risk assessment and care planning and implementation to address areas of risk. ACP (The American College of Physicians is a national organization of internists, who specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of adults. The largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States) Clinical Practice Guidelines indicate that the treatment of pressure ulcers should involve multiple tactics…
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 · D2023-11-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of information submitted by the facility, select facility policy and reports and clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary supervision and effective safety measures to prevent an elopement by one resident (Resident 1) out of 12 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Elopement, last reviewed by the facility April 2023, indicated it is the policy of the facility to promote resident safety through prevention of elopements, while allowing residents as much physical freedom as possible and to initiate a facility-wide search (including the grounds) immediately upon discovery of a missing resident. When residents who are identified as at risk to leave the facility unattended cannot be located on the unit, or any resident is identified as missing from the facility, the following procedure will be implemented: - The charge nurse will notify the nursing supervisor on duty. - The nursing supervisor will assign…
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 · D2023-11-30 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a clinical record review and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being of one resident out of the 19 sampled (Resident 8). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include anxiety disorder (a mental health disorder involving excessive fear or worry) and osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease that occurs when tissues that cushion the ends of bones within the joints break down). A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated September 12, 2023 revealed that Resident 8 is cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 (Brief Interview for Mental Status- a tool to assess cognitive function; a score of 13-15 indicates cognition is intact). A review 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for 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 review of 19 clinical records and resident payor source data, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to offer routine annual dental services for one private payor source resident reviewed. (Resident 24). Findings include: Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include depression and dementia, and her payor source was private pay. Review of Resident 24's annual MDS dated [DATE] quarterly MDS dated [DATE], April 21, 2023 and July 17, 2023 and annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], all indicated that the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Documentation provided by the facility indicated that the resident was last seen by a Dentist on December 29, 2021. A 2023 Dental Screening Consent Form was completed on December 20, 2022, and indicated that the resident's representitive wanted the resident to have a dental screening. There was no documentation that Resident 24 was offered dental services since December 29, 2021. Interview with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for 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 review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to offer routine annual dental services for two Medicaid payor source out of 19 residents sampled. (Resident 66 and 44). Findings include: Review of Resident 66's clinical record indicated that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and that the resident's payor source was Medicaid. Review of Resident 66's quarterly MDS assessments dated February 9, 2023, May 5, 2023 and October 27, 2023, and annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], all indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired. Documentation provided by the facility indicated that the resident was last seen by a dentist on October 26, 2022. A 2023 Dental Screening Consent Form was completed on February 14, 2023 and indicated that the resident's representitive wanted the resident to have a dental screening. There was no documentation in the resident's clinical record that Resident 66 received dental services since October 26, 2022, which 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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2023-11-30 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 19 sampled (Resident 80). Findings include: A review of the clinical record of Resident 80 revealed a physician's order dated November 9, 2023, for the resident to be discharged to an alternate nursing home on November 10, 2023. A review of Resident 80's Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section A 2105, indicated that the resident was discharged to an acute care hospital. Interview with the facility's RNAC (registered nurse assessment coordinator) on November 29, 2023, at approximately 11:22 a.m. confirmed that the MDS Assessment for Resident 80 was not accurate with respect to the resident's discharge location.
“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 COVENANT HEALTH — 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| COVENANT HEALTH | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/27/2013 |
| MORGAN CHOPICK, TRACEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/20/2023 |
| NEWCOMB, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/26/2016 |
| SCANLON, CATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2016 |
| VALENTI, SAMUEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/09/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 5 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 $453K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395104. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-12, 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.