No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Orwigsburg Nursing And Rehabilitation Center

1000 Orwigsburg Manor Dr, Orwigsburg, PA 17961 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 130 certified beds · (570) 366-2999 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)1 immediate-jeopardy citation$17,895 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $17,895 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-11)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Eyesense0.3 mi
123 E Market St · (570) 366-2080 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
101 W Market St · (570) 366-0381 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
· (223) 241-3172 · Call to confirm hours
Park
N Liberty St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 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 improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased14.4%16.8%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.1%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.5%1.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms23.6%10.8%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.7%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.6%17.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication19.8%20.0%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine85.4%93.5%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.6%4.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.2%25.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.9%17.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.1%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine58.9%68.7%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.8%22.5%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.0%9.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.231.621.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.971.181.80typical

§ 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.

37.1% 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 126 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

37.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
72.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.34U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.15hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 72.6% 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 73 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF37.1%CMS range 29.2–47.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.6%CMS range 6.0–12.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge72.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge69.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge60.3%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting73.7%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.9%CMS range 5.1–11.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.021.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.45
RN hours/ resident / day
0.95
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.99
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.39
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.32
RN hoursweekends
49.0%
Total nursing turnover
41.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 130 beds and averages 101.8 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 28 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 3.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.32 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%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-08-07)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-26)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · Kdisputed · IIDR2025-04-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment was free of accident hazards by ensuring illegal substances were not accessible to two of six sampled residents. (Residents 1 and 2) In addition, the facility failed to ensure the safety of residents in all areas of the facility in one of two nursing units (Unit A) and first floor common areas. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation.Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment was free of accident hazards by ensuring illegal substances were not accessible to two of six sampled residents. (Residents 1 and 2) In addition, the facility failed to ensure the safety of residents in all areas of the facility in one of two nursing units (Unit A) and first floor common areas. This failure…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-12 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect the residents' right to privacy and confidentiality through the use of photography for one of six sampled residents. (Resident 1)Findings include:Review of the facility policy entitled, Compliance Risks - Privacy, Security, and Breach Notifications, last reviewed January 2025, revealed that the facility complies with the laws governing privacy and security to ensure resident privacy and confidentiality. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated August 2, 2025, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. Further review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1 had declined authorization and consent for the production and use of any images taken on behalf of Orwigsburg Center or its agent on January 4, 2023.Review of facility documentation dated November 1, 2025 revealed that Nurse Aide 1 (NA 1) stated that…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for four of 25 sampled residents. (Residents 8, 62, 86 and 115)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 8 had diagnoses that included chronic kidney failure, congestive heart failure, and diabetes. A physician's order dated March 24, 2025, directed staff to administer a medication (isosorbide mononitrate) daily in the morning for heart disease. The medication was to be held if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was less than 115 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). Review of Resident 8's medication administration records (MARs) revealed that staff administered the medication six times in May 2025, five times in June 2025, and four times in July when the resident's SBP was less than 115 mmHg.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 62 had a diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure). On March 5, 2025, 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one of 25 sampled residents. (Resident 3)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included anxiety, depression, and atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat). Review of Resident 3's MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 3 had a tracheostomy (surgical hole in the front of the neck for breathing). Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed no physician's orders or care plan indicating the resident had a tracheostomy. In an interview on August 7, 2025, at 9:02 a.m., the Administrator confirmed Resident 3's MDS was inaccurate and that Resident did not have a tracheostomy.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    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, observation, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate grooming and personal hygiene for four of 20 sampled residents. (Residents 17, 31, 68 and 87) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 17 had diagnoses that included diabetes and a history of respiratory disease. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated June 10, 2024, she could communicate her needs and required supervision with her activities of daily living (ADLs) such as personal hygiene. The resident was hospitalized from [DATE] to 18, 2024, after a decline in condition. After returning from the hospital, she was more dependent on staff for all mobility and care, including her ADLs. On July 23, 2024, at 12:28 p.m., the resident was observed in bed with long and jagged finger and toe nails. At that time, the resident stated, They haven't helped me trim my nails in a while. On July 25, 2024, at 12:49 p.m., 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess bladder incontinence and provide services to restore as much bladder function as possible for two of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 57, 60) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Urinary Continence and Incontinence - Assessment and Management, last reviewed January 16, 2024, revealed that facility staff was to complete a urinary incontinence assessment periodically and when there was a change in voiding. Staff would define each resident's level of continence and identify the type of incontinence. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included anxiety and hemiplegia. A Bowel and Bladder Program Screener was completed on April 3, 2024, and May 1, 2024, and indicated that the resident was a candidate for a scheduled toileting program. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated June, 24…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to offer non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of as needed anti-anxiety medications for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 57) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 57 had diagnoses that included schizophrenia and anxiety. On June 10 and 24, 2024, and July 8 and 22, 2024, the physician ordered an anti-anxiety medication, alprazolam, be given every eight hours as needed for 14 days. Review of the medication administration records for June and July 2024, revealed that staff had administered the as needed alprazolam 30 times. There was no documented evidence that staff attempted non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of the as needed anti-anxiety medication. In an interview on July 26, 2024, at 10:05 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that staff attempted non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of the as needed anti-anxiety medication. 28 Pa. code…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's preference at meal times had been accommodated for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 27) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 27 had diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure. A Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was alert and able to make his needs known. Resident 27's ongoing care plan revealed he had the potential to be at nutritional risk and an intervention was to honor his food preferences. On July 23, 2024, at 10:55 a.m., Resident 27 stated that he frequently received items he disliked on his meal trays. On July 23, 2024, at 12:40 p.m., Resident 27's lunch tray was observed and he received rice as a side dish. Review of Resident 27's meal ticket at that time revealed that rice was listed as a food the resident disliked. In an interview at…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · tag F0810 — isolated
    Provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adaptive equipment to assist with eating meals for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included dysphagia and aphasia. On March 19, 2024, the physician ordered that staff provide the resident a two handled cup at all meals. Review of an occupational therapy note dated July 17, 2024, revealed that it was recommended for the resident to continue to use a two handled mug or regular mug/cup with a lid and straw to aid independence. On July 23, 2024, from 12:40 p.m. through 12:55 p.m., and on July 25, 2024, from 12:40 p.m. through 12:55 p.m., Resident 1 was observed in the dining room without a two handled cup or regular mug/cup with a lid and straw for her beverages. In an interview on July 26, 2024, at 10:20 a.m., Registered Nurse 1 confirmed that the resident should have received her drink in a two handled cup at all meals. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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 record review, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow policy related transmissions-based precautions and use of personal protective equipment for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 47) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Isolation- Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, last reviewed on January 16, 2024, revealed that transmission-based precautions (TBP) were additional measures to protect staff, visitors, and other residents from becoming infected when a resident was diagnosed with specific pathogens. A sign was hung on the room entrance door so that staff and visitors were aware of the need for precautions. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnoses that included dementia, pneumonia, and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (a drug resistant infection) in the sputum. On May 13, 2024, a physician ordered that staff use TBP…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-04 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 23 sampled residents. (Resident 3) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included paraplegia (loss of feeling or movement in part of the body), anxiety, depression, and chronic pain. A physician's order dated June 21, 2023, directed staff to administer Percocet (a pain medication) every four hours as needed for severe pain of eight to 10 on the pain scale. Review of the June, July, and August 2023, medication administration records revealed that staff administered the medication when the resident's pain was rated below eight on the pain scale eight times in June, 19 times in July, and one time in August. In an interview on August 4, 2023, at 9:45 a.m., Quality Regulatory Consultant 1 confirmed that staff had administered the Percocet when the resident's pain was below the established parameters. CFR 483.25 Quality of Care Previously cited 10/6/22 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-08-04 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement treatment and services to prevent a further decrease in range of motion for one of six sampled residents with limited range of motion. (Resident 46) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 46 had diagnoses that included quadriplegia (the inability to be able to move any muscles from the neck down), muscle spasm, and traumatic brain injury. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired, dependent on staff for activities of daily living, and had a limitation in range of motion on both sides of the upper extremities. On March 8, 2022, the occupational therapist (OT) recommended a restorative nursing program (RNP) for range of motion for both shoulders and the right elbow. A physician's order dated March 9, 2022, directed staff to provide the RNP and provide a prolonged stretch for both shoulders and also to extend the right elbow…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$17,895 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $17,895 — penalty dated 2025-04-11

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 IMPERIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP — 9 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.3+1.7 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 51.3+0.7 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
BH OPCO HOLDCO LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 07/01/2019
CHRH EQUITIES LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST10%since 07/29/2021
ENS HOLDINGS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST25%since 07/29/2021
THE ENS FAMILY TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST25%since 07/26/2021
YMCS EQUITIES LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST10%since 07/29/2021
GOTTESMAN, DANIELIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST25%since 07/29/2021
DOCKEY, CAROLIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 07/01/2019
HERZKA, YISROELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/29/2021

5 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.

$10.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-8.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 80%Medicare 6%Other / private 15%

About 80% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$301per resident / day
operating cost
$9,150per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$278per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in PA

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Pennsylvania
$11,954/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,688/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,480/mo
Assisted living

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 395878. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.

What to do next