Transitions Healthcare North Huntingdon
8850 Barnes Lake Road, North Huntingdon, PA 15642 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (724) 864-7190 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 14.8% | 16.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.2% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 1.5% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 1.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 30.4% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.3% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.8% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.2% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.1% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 50.8% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.2% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.7% | 9.5% | 12.0% | worse |
§ 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.
52.7% 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 92 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 47.8% 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 67 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 52.7%CMS range 42.4–64.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.9%CMS range 6.5–12.6 | 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 | 47.8% | 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 | 55.2% | 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 | 44.8% | 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 | 91.8% | 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 | 95.3% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.0–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.70 | 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 120 beds and averages 109.6 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.42 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-30 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make sure that medical supplies and medications were properly stored and/or disposed of in one of two medication rooms (A/B Nursing Unit Medication Room). Findings include: Review the facility policy Storage of Medications dated 4/1/26, indicated that outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated items will be removed from stock and disposed of accordingly. During an observation of the A/B nursing unit medication room on 4/28/26, at approximately 12:32 p.m. the following was observed:(5) Medline foley catheter 20 french with an expiration date of 9/28/25.(10) Medline foley catheter 22 french with an expiration date of 12/28/25.(5) Amsino foley catheter 20 french with an expiration date of 9/3/25.(6) BD MaxPlus needleless connector with an expiration date of 8/17/25.(1) Osang Health Care covid-19 antigen self test with an expiration date of 12/12/23.(1) BBL CultureSwab collection and transport system…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to make certain a resident had an updated, person-centered care plan individualized to each specific resident's needs for three of eight residents (Resident R12, R23, R99).Findings include: Review of the facility policy Care Plan-Comprehensive dated 4/1/26, previously dated 4/1/25, indicated each resident will have a comprehensive care plan developed that is individualized, includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident, and reflect the resident's cultural references, values, and practices. Review of Resident R12's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R12's clinical record Minimum Data Set (MDS-a periodic assessment of resident's needs) dated 2/2/26, indicated diagnoses of stroke (blood flow to the brain is blocked or a vessel bursts causing…
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 · D2026-04-30 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care and maintain oxygen equipment for two of eight sampled residents (Residents R53, and R133).Findings include: Review of the facility policy Oxygen Concentrators reviewed on 4/1/26, with a prior review date of 4/1/25. The policy indicates The facility will include cleaning of humidifiers and filters to maintain optimal function and infection procedures. Procedure change cannula weekly (11-7) and as needed. Filters (11-7) clean weekly and as needed. Review of the facility policy CPAP/BIPAP reviewed on 4/1/26 with a prior review date of 4/1/25. Verify physician's order and oxygen source if ordered. Connect one end of the oxygen tubing to the oxygen enrichment adapter and the other end to the oxygen source. Cleaning the system weekly. Review of Resident R53's admission record indicated he was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident R53's Minimum…
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 · D2026-04-30 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain consistent dialysis communication was maintained for one of five residents reviewed (Residents R56).Findings include: Review of the facility policy Hemodialysis, Home Hemodialysis dated 4/1/26 with a prior review date of 4/1/25. The policy indicates Each resident is provided with a dialysis communication binder, so the facility and dialysis center can communicate. Daily dialysis treatments sheets are utilized for each treatment session. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R56's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 3/3/26, indicated diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes (body does not use insulin effectively), and end stage renal disease (kidneys fail to filter waste and balance fluids). Review of Resident R56's physician order dated 3/18/25, indicated…
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 · D2026-04-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper infection control practices were followed while providing medications to three of 32 residents reviewed (Resident R26, R31, and R119).Findings include: The facility policy Administration Procedure for All Medications reviewed on 4/1/26, previously reviewed on 4/1/25, indicated medications will be administered in a safe and effective manner. In Section IV step three states to clean hands using antimicrobial soap and water or facility approved hand sanitizer before a med pass, before handling medications and before contact with a resident. In step four it states to use a barrier (e.g. clean disposable tray or plastic cup) to carry medication containers into the resident's room and to separate the supplies and the over the bed table or other surface on which the supplies are placed, when medications are administered. The facility policy Handwashing/Hand Hygiene reviewed on 4/1/26, previously reviewed 4/1/25, indicated effective hand hygiene reduces…
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 · E2026-03-11 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, facility records, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain call lights were accessible and answered timely for six of thirteen residents as required (Resident R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6).Findings include: The facility policy Call Bells dated 4/1/25, indicated the purpose of this procedure is to respond to the resident's requests and needs when using the call bell system for assistance. If answering the call light from the nurse's station, please ensure that staff respond to resident request immediately. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, indicated that a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) is a brief screener that aids in detecting cognitive impairment. Scores from a BIMS assessment suggests the…
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 · D2026-03-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care was provided in a manner which maintained resident dignity for three of thirteen residents (Resident R1, R5 and R7).Findings include: Review of the Resident Rights policy last reviewed 4/1/25, indicated that the resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility, including those specified in this section. The facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated…
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 · E2026-01-15 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of significant medication errors for two of five residents reviewed (Residents R2 and R3). Findings include: Review of facility policy Administration Procedure for All Medications dated 04/01/25, indicated that medications will be administered in a safe and effective manner. The policy further stated, Obtain and record any vital signs or other monitoring parameters ordered or deemed necessary prior to administration. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 11/25/25, included diagnoses of COPD and high blood pressure. Review of a physician order dated 3/20/25, indicated to give 12.5 mg (milligrams) of metoprolol (a medication to treat elevated blood pressure) one time per day. The order further stated to hold the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-15 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the medical provider of a change in condition for one of four residents (Resident R1).Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Change in Condition dated 4/1/25, indicated it is the policy of the facility to inform residents, medical providers, and the resident representative of a change in the resident's condition. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of care needs) dated 10/30/25, included diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function) and heart failure (a progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles). Review of Section C: Cognitive Patterns indicated that Resident R1 did not have cognitive impairment. Review of Resident R1's progress notes since admission on [DATE], through 11/16/25, failed to reveal…
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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of residents' medical information on one of four medication carts (orchards unit).Findings include:Review of the facility's Safeguarding of Posted Protected Health Information (PHI) dated 4/1/25, indicated the facility will protect the privacy of resident ' s PHI from intentional or unintentional view when posting information. Posted information may include information located at the bedside, on whiteboards, on walls, or other public areas. During an observation on 11/6/25, at approximately 9:50 a.m. a medication cart in hallway was left unattended with an open laptop displaying resident identifiable information, any passerby could see resident personal and confidential information. During an interview on 11/6/25, at approximately 9:57 a.m. Employee E1 confirmed the observation of a medication cart in hallway was left unattended with an open laptop displaying resident identifiable information, any passerby could see resident personal 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.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-03 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documents and resident interviews and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet resident need for nine of thirteen residents (Resident R1. R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, and R9).Findings include: During an interview on 9/3/25, at 10:30 a.m. Resident R1, stated that call light response times can be long. During an interview on 9/3/25, at 10:35 a.m. Resident R2, when asked if she felt the facility had sufficient staff stated, No. Resident R2 further confirmed that call she has waited up to an hour and a half for call light response During an interview on 9/3/25, at 11:29 a.m. Resident R3, when asked if he felt the facility had sufficient staff stated, Not always, sometimes they are a little short-staffed. During an interview on 9/3/25, at 11:35 a.m. Resident R4, when asked if he felt the facility had sufficient staff chuckled, then stated, When they are fully-staffed. During an interview on 9/3/25, at 11:41 a.m. Resident R5, when asked if she felt the facility had sufficient staff stated, No. Resident R5…
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 · D2025-05-30 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical record and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to inform a resident's representative in advance of the proposed care, including the risk and benefits of the prescribed medication for one of three residents (Resident R43). Finding include: Review of the facility's policy, Change of Condition, with a review date of 4/1/25, and 4/1/24, reported that the facility must notify the resident's representative of the change and any changes made to the resident's plan of care and document in the medical record. Assist with any contacts desired between the family, resident, and Physician/CRNP (Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner) within HIPPA guidelines. Attempt to contact the resident representative at frequent intervals, until notified of the change and interventions, and document all attempts to notify resident representative. Review of Resident R43's Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs), dated 4/22/25, indicated diagnoses of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage without loss of consciousness (bleeding…
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 · D2025-05-30 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 review of facility policies, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medical records on each resident are complete and accurately documented for one of four residents (Resident R69) A review of the facility policy Administration Procedures For All Medications dated 4/1/25, indicated medications will be administered in a safe and effective manner and after administration document in the MAR (medication administration record) or TAR (treatment administration record) as necessary. A review of the clinical record indicated that Resident R69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included heart disease, dementia, and asthma. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 5/13/25, indicated the diagnoses remained current. A review of Resident R69's physician orders dated 1/23/25, indicated to administer oxygen via n/c (nasal cannula) at 4L (liters) per minute continuously every shift.…
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 · F2025-02-06 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility policies, documents, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly design, approve, and follow the Winter five week cycle menu and modifications of the cycle menu. (Winter menu Cycle weeks one, two, three, four and five). Findings include: A review of the facility's Menu Planning policy date 12/31/24, revealed that menu planning will be completed by the facility at least two weeks in advance of service. Regular and therapeutic diets will be written to provide a variety of foods served, adjusted for seasonal changes and in adequate amounts at each meal to satisfy recommended daily allowances. The registered dietitian (RD) will approve all menus. A review of the facility's Sample Menu Shell for Diet Extensions template date 12/31/24, revealed therapeutic diets include: Regular/Regular no added salt packet, Mechanical soft/moist, minced/ground, Mechanical soft bite size, Pureed, Consistent carbohydrate, and Consistent Carbohydrate Pureed. A review of the facility's Portion Control policy date 12/31/24, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-06 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment throughout the facility (resident rooms, dining room and hallways) as required. (resident rooms, dining room, and hallways) Finding include: During an observation of the facility on 2/5/25, at 10:30 am the following was revealed: * Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] W (window) the area behind the resident's bed headboard contained peeling and scuffed paint. * Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] W the area behind the resident's bed headboard contained a deep gash in the wall along with peeling paint * Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] W the area behind the resident's bed headboard contained peeling paint * Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] D (door) and W the area behind the resident's bed headboard contained peeling wall paper. * the doors to the dietary department contained scuff marks and peeling paint * the hallway wall underneath the dining room bulletin boards contained a deep gash in the wall with broken plaster *…
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 · E2024-06-07 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of resident group interview, Ombudsman interview, and observations it was determined that the facility failed to provide a private space for the resident group for ten of ten residents (GR100, GR101, GR102, GR103, GR104, GR105, GR106, GR107, GR108, and GR109). Findings include: During a group interview on 6/5/24, at 1:30 p.m. a Resident Group meeting was conducted in the facility dining room. Signage was posted by the facility on the doors of both sides of the dining room, indicating that a private resident group was being conducted, and not to enter. During the group interview, facility staff entered the group 13 times, to utilize the dining room to proceed from one side of the building to the other. When a facility staff member who entered the dining room was asked by the surveyor if signage was posted asking for staff not to enter the room, she confirmed that it was. When asked why she entered, she stated, To go to the front office. After this interruption, the surveyor facilitating the group interview exited the room, informed the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)…
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 · E2024-06-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 and clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (a written instruction such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for four of five residents reviewed (Resident R23, R65, R84, and R87). Findings include: A review of the facility Advanced Directive and Advanced Care Planning reviewed 9/23/23, 1/10/24, and 4/10/24, indicated it is the policy and intent of the facility to inform and provide residents with written information regarding their right to formulate advanced directives for the purpose of prospectively identifying a healthcare decision maker, clarifying treatment preferences, and developing individualized goals of care near end of life. A review of the medical record indicated Resident R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes, depression, and high blood pressure. A 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-07 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required time frame for seven of 20 residents (Resident R9, R13, R17, R26, R36, R64, and R92). Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2023, indicated that an admission MDS assessment was to be completed no later than 14 days following admission (admission date plus 13 calendar days), and an annual MDS assessment was to be completed no later than the Assessment Reference Date (ARD). Resident R9 had an admission date of 2/7/24, with an MDS completion due date of 2/21/24. Resident R13 had an ARD of 3/4/24, with an MDS completion date of 3/21/24. Resident R17 had an admission date of 2/7/24, with an MDS completion due…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medications and medication supplies were properly stored and/or disposed of in one of two medication rooms (Orchards medication room). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Storage of Medications dated [DATE], indicated medications are and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations. During an observation on [DATE], at 11:20 a.m. of the Orchards medication room, the following was observed: -(57) vacutainers with an expiration date of [DATE]. -(1) intravenous access (IV) start kit with an expiration date of [DATE]. -(1) IV start kit with an expiration date of [DATE]. -(2) IV start kits with an expiration date of [DATE]. -(13) Povidone-iodine swabsticks with an expiration date of [DATE] -(10) disposable scalpels with an expiration date of [DATE]. -(1) bottle of glucometer testing solutions with an expiration date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-19 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain call light equipment for five of seven residents (Resident R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5). Findings include: During an observation on 5/19/24, at 2:24 p.m. the lights above the room doors for Resident R1/R2's room, Resident R3's room, Resident R6/R7's room were noted to be illuminated. During an observation on 5/19/24, at 2:25 p.m. revealed the nurses station call light monitoring panel only showed Resident R6/R7's room to be alarming. The lights were still noted to be illuminated over the doors at this time. During an interview on 5/19/24, at 2:25 p.m. Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E1, when asked why the lights were not illuminated on the monitoring panel, stated, That doesn't work. During an interview on 5/19/24, at 2:27 p.m. NA Employee E2, when asked why the lights were not illuminated on the monitor, gestured to the call light monitoring panel stated, It's hit or miss if it works. During an observation on 5/19/24, at 2:33 p.m. the light above the room doors for Resident R4/R5's room was noted…
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 · D2024-04-02 · 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 facility policy review, clinical and facility record review, facility submitted documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement for one of five residents (Resident R1). This was identified as past non-compliance. Review of the facility policy Elopement of Resident dated 2/13/24, indicated residents will be evaluated for elopement risk upon admission, re-admission, quarterly, and with a change in condition as part of the nursing assessment process. Those determined to be at risk will receive appropriate interventions to reduce the risk and minimize injury. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident R1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 2/22/24, included diagnoses of diabetes (a metabolic disorder in which the body has high sugar levels for prolonged periods of time) and coronary artery…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE — 6 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 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FELDMAN, MARC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/01/2014 |
| MAURANO, MATTHEW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/01/2014 |
| WILLIAMS, KEVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/01/2014 |
| CAPITAL FINANCE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2014 |
| TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2014 |
| WILSON, DAYNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2025 |
| ZDRALE, NIKOLAI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/04/2020 |
| 8550 BARNES LAKE ROAD LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $596K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395585. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-30, 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.