Swaim Health Center
210 Big Spring Road, Newville, PA 17241 · Non profit - Church related · 67 certified beds · (717) 776-8200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2023
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-27)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 20.6% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 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 | 2.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 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 | 2.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.0% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.9% | 20.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.6% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.6% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.8% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.9% | 68.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.5% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.7% | 9.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.14 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ 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.
40.8% 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 112 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.0% 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 55 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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 | 40.8%CMS range 32.3–48.9 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 8.4–15.6 | 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 | 60.0% | 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 | 52.7% | 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 | 58.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.2–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.76 | 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 67 beds and averages 60.5 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.63 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.40 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.99 to 0.82 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-04-06 · 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
Based on clinical record review, observations, facility document review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance by failure to implement interventions, supervision, and effective safety measures to prevent elopement of a resident identified as being at risk for elopement and exhibiting exit seeking behaviors (Resident 1). This failure placed one additional resident who was identified as at risk for elopement and independent with ambulation in an Immediate Jeopardy situation (Resident 4).Findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled Wandering Management Policy, created February 28, 2022, read, in part, Objective: To prevent wandering that could lead to resident elopement and to identify action steps to be taken in the event of an unauthorized resident absence from the community. Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (a brain condition that gradually affects memory, thinking, and behavior) and Dementia (cognitive and memory changes that disrupt…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-01-27 · 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
Based on clinical record review, review of facility investigation documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance in its failure to ensure that interventions were put into place to prevent accident hazards during a transfer, resulting in actual harm as evidenced by a skin tear requiring treatment, for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings include: Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), abnormalities of gait and mobility, and muscle weakness. Review of nursing progress notes entered by Employee 1 (Registered Nurse) dated January 16, 2025, revealed that she was called to Resident 1's bedside to assess a skin tear that was acquired while transferring Resident 1 into bed. Further review of the note revealed, Two aides present, transferring resident d/t [due to] resident dislodging hoyer pad from correct positioning. During transfer right forearm…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policies, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice to meet each resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for three of 16 residents reviewed (Residents 5, 22, and 55). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Wound Care, with a last review date of August 14, 2024, revealed, in part, 15. Treatments will be performed by personnel in accordance with licensure practice acts. Review of facility policy, titled Intravenous Device Care, with a last review date of August 14, 2024, revealed, in part, 3. Intravenous Care will be documented in the medical record, Electronic Medication Administration Record, and/or Electronic Treatment Administration Record. Section titled PICC Line Care, indicated Intermittent Infusion - Change tubing and needleless connection devices every 24 hours; Dressing Change - Change transparent dressing 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 · D2025-07-02 · 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 clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for three of 19 residents reviewed (Residents 5, 23, and 47). Findings include: Review of Resident 5's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that affects the way your body metabolizes sugar [glucose], leading to high blood sugar levels) and hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy (a group of inherited disorders that affect the peripheral nervous system and a type of nerve damage where the cause remains unknown despite thorough testing, leading to symptoms like numbness, pain, and balance issues). Review of Resident 5's Comprehensive MDS (Minimum Data Set - an assessment tool to review all care areas specific to the resident such as a resident's physical, mental or psychosocial needs) with the assessment reference date (last day of the assessment period) of October 4, 2024, indicated in…
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 before2025-07-02 · 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
Based on policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection of a pressure ulcer for two of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents 10 and 47). Findings Include: Review of policy, titled Wound Care, last approved December 24, 2024, revealed, Care of wounds is provided in accordance with current research and practice guidelines in order to facilitate healing and/or provide comfort and provide symptom control as appropriate .Treatments will be performed by personnel in accordance with licensure practice acts. Review of Resident 10's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included chronic pain and muscle weakness. Review of facility wound care tracking revealed that Resident 10 had stage 3 pressure injuries (full-thickness skin loss exposing underlying fat tissue) to both his left and right heels. Review of Resident 10's May 2025 TAR (Treatment Administration…
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 · D2025-07-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper monitoring for acceptable parameters of hydration and nutritional status for one of three residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident 10). Findings include: Review of Resident 10's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included chronic pain and muscle weakness. Review of Resident 10's weight documentation revealed that he experienced a significant weight loss of 9.52% between May 1, 2025, and June 2, 2025. Review of dietician progress notes dated June 3, 2025, revealed acknowledgement of the weight loss and a plan to monitor his weight weekly for one month, until July 3, 2025. Review of Resident 10's physician orders revealed an order to weigh weekly on Tuesdays through July 3, starting on June 10, 2025, and ending on July 3, 2025. Review of Resident 10's clinical record failed to reveal that a weight was recorded on June 24, 2025. Review of Resident 10's June 2025 TAR (Treatment Administration Record) revealed a physician's order for an enhanced shake (prepared 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 · E2024-08-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of select facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor and utilize equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen and café area. Findings include: Observation of the dish machine in the main kitchen on August 12, 2024, at 9:36 AM, revealed the wash cycle temperature was reading 150 degrees Fahrenheit (F- unit of measure) and the rinse cycle temperature was reading 172 degrees F. During an interview with Employee 1 (Food Service Director) on August 12, 2024, at 9:38 AM, he revealed it is possible the machine needs to heat up more for the day before it reaches the minimum acceptable temperatures. Observation of the August 2024 dish machine temperature log on August 12, 2024, at 9:40 AM, revealed the recorded wash cycle temperatures were below the minimum safe temperature of 160 degrees F on August 1-3, 2024, during breakfast; and August 2, 3, and 5, 2024, during lunch. Further…
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 · D2024-08-14 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate services and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of two residents reviewed for limited range of motion (Resident 42). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Restorative Care Program, last reviewed August 15, 2023, read, in part, Presbyterian Senior Living facilities will provide restorative services which prevent, slow functional decline and/or maintain the resident highest practicable level functioning in accordance with state and federal regulations. Matrix Care Point of Care will be assigned for Nurse Aid documentation to include the program and the minutes the program is performed. Review of Resident 42's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included chronic pain (pain that lasts more than three months or beyond normal healing time), anxiety (a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease), and left above the knee amputation. Review of Resident 42's care plan revealed she has…
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 · D2024-08-14 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the licensed pharmacist's report of a medication irregularity was reviewed and acted upon timely for two of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents 5 and 42). Findings include: Review of facility policy, titled Medication Regimen Review, last reviewed August 15, 2023, read, in part, The consultant pharmacist performs a comprehensive review of each resident's medication regimen and clinical record at least monthly. The findings are phoned, faxed, or e-mailed within 24 hours to the director of nursing or designee and are documented and stored with the other consultant pharmacist recommendations in the resident's active record. The prescriber is notified if needed. Review of facility policy, titled Documentation and Communicating of Consultant Pharmacists Recommendations, last reviewed August 15, 2023, read, in part, The consultant pharmacist works with the facility to establish a system whereby the consultant pharmacist…
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 before2023-10-12 · 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
Based on clinical record review, observations, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards to promote healing and prevent infection of pressure ulcers for one of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident 103). Findings include: Review of Facility policy, titled Wound Care, last approved on May 31, 2023, revealed it stated the facility's policy was, Care of wounds is provided in accordance with current research and practice guidelines in order to facilitate healing and/or provide comfort and symptom control as appropriate. Review of Resident 103's clinical record on October 10, 2023, at approximately 1:30 PM, revealed diagnoses that included stage 4 pressure injury of the sacrum (wound of the skin caused by pressure over a bony prominence that extends to the through the skin to the bone and other connective tissue) and osteomyelitis (infection of the bone). During wound dressing change observations on October 12, 2023, at approximately 10:05 AM, Employee 1 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, investigation document review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from neglect by failing to provide a two-person transfer and use of a device as per care planned for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1). Findings include: A review of the facility policy, titled Abuse Neglect or Exploitation last reviewed October 22, 2022, indicated that neglect is the failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress to the resident despite knowledge that the care and services are required. A review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included osteoporosis (decreased bone density and softening of the bone), dementia (irreversible, progressive degenerative disease of the brain, resulting in loss of reality contact and functioning…
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 before2023-08-17 · 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 clinical records, review of facility investigation reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment that was free of accident hazards for residents who were at risk for falls by failing to follow care-planned interventions for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings include: A review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included osteoporosis (decreased bone density and softening of the bone), dementia (irreversible, progressive degenerative disease of the brain, resulting in loss of reality contact and functioning ability), and was hospice status (end of life). Further review of Resident 1's admission record indicated she was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident 1's Quarterly MDS assessment (Minimum Data Set assessment: MDS - a periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated May 17, 2023, indicated a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) scored a 3, indicating severely impaired cognitive status. Review…
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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-01-27
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRESBYTERIAN SENIOR LIVING — 11 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHI | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 06/30/2009 |
| BIRDSALL, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CHOTTINER, LAWRENCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| DAVIS, DANNY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| DENISON, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| DERR, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| ELLIOTT, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| FOX, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| GOLDSTEIN, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| HERSHEY, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| KELLY, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| KINARD, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| KRIEGER, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MCALISTER, DYAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| PAXTON, STUART | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| REIMANN, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| RHODES, CHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| SCOTT, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| SEIBERT, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| SHROPSHIRE, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2017 |
| STONE, ROBYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| DAVIS, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HOFFMAN, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/02/2021 |
| WICKLINE, BEVERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| BENCHMARK THERAPIES, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| CURANA HEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BOWSER, NICOLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2011 |
| FAGER, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2026 |
| HURLEY, AMBER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/24/2023 |
| KATZ, PAUL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| AB STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| ADARA HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| BAKER TILLY ADVISORY GROUP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| BENEVOLENT HEALTHCARE STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| CROSS COUNTRY STAFFING, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DEDICATED NURSING ASSOCIATES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| EXCELLA STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FAVORITE HEALTHCARE STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HEALTHDIRECT INSTITUTIONAL PHARMACY SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| INFINITE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| READY TO HELP STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| RKL LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| RN PLUS, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHIFTSTER LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| TITAN NURSE STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| TRIAGE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 58 rows in the source record cover these 47 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
20 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 395375. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-02, 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.