Stoneridge Poplar Run
450 East Lincoln Avenue, Myerstown, PA 17067 · Non profit - Other · 60 certified beds · (717) 866-3200 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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 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 | 27.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 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 | 1.1% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.2% | 10.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.4% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.9% | 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 | 4.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.7% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.0% | 17.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.41 | 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.
38.8% 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 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 38.8%CMS range 28.8–52.4 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 6.7–15.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 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 60 beds and averages 26.7 residents a day — about 44% occupied, or roughly 33 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 6.69 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.83 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.15 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 6.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.86 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.17 to 0.96 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% 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 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-14 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a Minimum Data Set assessment for a significant change in condition was completed for one of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 2) Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 experienced a decline in overall status and hospice services began on October 17, 2025. There was no Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed to reflect the significant change in the resident's condition. In an interview on November 14, 2025, at 10:29 a.m., the Administrator confirmed that a significant change MDS assessment was not completed upon a change in the resident's condition.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-14 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the resident's current status for one of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 7)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 7 had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia, dysphagia following cerebral infarction (stroke), moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease with esophagitis without bleeding. On September 12, 2025, a physician ordered for staff to provide a regular, mechanical soft diet. Review of the MDS assessment dated , August 15, 2025, revealed that the resident received nutrition through a tube feed. There was no documented evidence that Resident 7 received nutrition through a tube feed. In an interview on November 14, 2025, at 12:20 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the MDS assessment did not accurately reflect the nutrition status of Resident 7.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-14 · 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 facility policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner on one of two nursing units. (Health Care 1)Findings include:Review of the facility policy entitled, Use and Storage of Food Brought in by Family or Visitors, dated July 24, 2025, revealed that nursing staff were to label and date the resident food items that required refrigeration. Observation on Health Care 1 in the resident pantry on November 13, 2025, at 2:15 p.m., revealed a sign on the refrigerator that indicated it was for resident food only, items should be dated and labeled with the resident's name, and would be discarded within three days if not consumed. In the freezer, there were two opened containers of ice cream and two opened boxes of ice cream popsicles that were not dated or labeled with a resident name. In the refrigerator, there were three juice boxes, one Boost drink and a six-pack of soda that were not labeled with resident names. There was a plastic zip-lock bag that contained cookies on top of another container, neither…
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 before2025-11-14 · tag F0868 — isolatedHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all the required committee members attended quarterly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings for three of four quarters of meetings reviewed.Findings include: Review of facility's QAPI sign-in sheets and attendance records for meetings held in the fourth quarter of 2024 revealed that the facility's Infection Preventionist and Medical Director failed to attend.Review of the facility's QAPI sign-in sheets and attendance records for the first three quarters of 2025 revealed the facility's Medical Director failed to attend meetings held during the second and third quarters of 2025. During an interview on November 12, 2025, at 12:10 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to ensure that all the required committee members attended QAPI meetings at least quarterly.28 Pa Code: 201.18(e)(1)(2)(3) Management.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-10-03 · 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 policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food and maintain sanitary conditions in the skilled unit kitchen and the main kitchen of the dietary department. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy entitled, Food Storage, dated August 13, 2024, revealed that when a food item was opened, a use-by date must be noted on the item and the food was to be discarded after this date. Observations during the tour of the skilled unit kitchen on October 1, 2024, at 9:50 a.m., revealed the following: The ice machine had a white substance on the outside of the lid. Inside the ice machine there was a dark substance along the front of the plastic ice shield. The can opener had a black dried substance on the blade. There was a hair on the can opener. Observations during the tour of the main kitchen on October 1, 2024, at 10:15 a.m., revealed the following: In Walk-In Cooler 1 there was an opened package of lunch meat with a use-by date of September 28, 2024, and an opened container of mozzarella cheese with a use-by…
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 · D2024-10-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed individual resident needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment for two of 14 sampled residents. (Residents 17, 18) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included dementia and a lumbar spine compression fracture. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], noted that the resident received daily scheduled pain medication. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Care Area Assessment (CAA) summary dated April 19, 2024, noted that the resident's pain was to be addressed in the care plan. There was no evidence that interventions to address Resident 17's pain were included in the current care plan. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficits and anxiety. The MDS…
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 · D2024-01-12 · 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 clinical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision in order to prevent an elopement for one of two sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Elopements and Wandering Residents, dated May 24, 2023, revealed that the facility was to identify residents with potential and/or actual risk factors for elopement to protect the resident through development and implementation of safety interventions. Elopement occurs when a resident leaves the premises or safe area without authorization and/or the necessary supervision to do so. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included anxiety, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, and depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had memory impairment and was independent with walking in the corridor with a walker. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-08 · 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 clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess bladder incontinence and provide services to restore bladder function as much as possible for two of 12 sampled residents. (Residents 7, 16) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Incontinence - Assessment and Management, last reviewed August 14, 2023, revealed that facility staff was to complete a urinary incontinence assessment upon admission and whenever there was a change in a resident's urinary tract function. Staff would complete a quarterly screening and if there was a change in incontinence staff would implement a seven day toileting diary to determine a resident's voiding pattern for assistance in decision making and development of a toileting program. The type of urinary incontinence was to be identified in the care plan with specific interventions. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included…
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 · C2025-11-14 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a written notice of the facility's bed-hold policy (an agreement for the facility to hold a bed for an agreed rate during a hospitalization) and notice of transfers out of the facility to the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman and to the resident, family member, or legal representative for four of four sampled residents who were transferred to a hospital. (Residents 3, 11, 14, and 20)Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 was transferred to the hospital on July 18, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided with written information regarding facility's bed hold policy or the transfer to the hospital and that the facility notified the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 11 was transferred to the hospital on December 9, 2024, and October 6, 2025, after changes in condition. There was no…
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 · Ccited before2024-10-03 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, documentation review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all required staff persons attended Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee meetings on a quarterly basis. Findings include: A review of the facility's QAPI Plan, last reviewed on November 2, 2023, revealed the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QA&A) Committee was responsible for meeting, at minimum, on a quarterly basis, and was to include the Medical Director (MD) and the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Officer. A review of QAPI Committee meeting sign-in sheets for April through August 2024, revealed that the Medical Director was last present in April 2024, and the Infection Preventionist was last present in May 2024. In an interview on October 3, 2024, at 12:40 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the MD and IPC did not attend the minimum required meetings from April through August, 2024. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(1)(3) Management.
- No harm found · B2024-10-03 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of transfer(s), including the reasons for the moves and Ombudsman information, in writing upon transfer from the facility for three of three sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Resident 14, 18, 24) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 14 was transferred to the hospital on September 21, 2024, after a change in condition. There was no documentation to support that the resident or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 18 was transferred to the hospital on May 24, 2024, after a change in condition. There was no documentation to support that the resident or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 24 was transferred 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARTZ, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| SMITH, JILL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| WALTERS, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| CASEY, RYAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/02/2014 |
| REITER, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 05/16/2008 |
| GERBER, APRIL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| PEARLSTEIN, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 395927. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-14, 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.