Renaissance Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center
4712 Chester Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19143 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 123 certified beds · (215) 727-4450 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2024
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-27)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.0% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 10.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.8% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.8% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.5% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.1% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 25.4% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.4% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.8% | 9.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.97 | 1.62 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.13 | 1.18 | 1.80 | 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.
53.7% 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 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 39.6% 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 48 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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 | 53.7%CMS range 40.6–64.8 | 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 | 11.3%CMS range 7.8–16.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 39.6% | 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 | 41.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 37.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.5% | 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 | 5.9%CMS range 3.5–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 123 beds and averages 117.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.88 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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 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.
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.
35 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, review of facility policy, review of facility investigation reports, hospital record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of three residents (Resident R1) reviewed was free from physical abuse and neglect which resulted in actual harm to Resident R1 who sustained a head injury, hematoma to the right side of the face, lip laceration and required transfer to the hospital. This deficiency was identified as past non-compliance. (Resident R1) Findings Include: A review of the facility policy, titled Lifting Machine, Using a Mechanical, dated July 2017 stated, the purpose of this procedure is to establish the general principles of safe lifting using a mechanical lifting device. General Guidelines: at least two (2) nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift. 1. Mechanical lifts may be used for tasks that require: 2. Lifting a resident from the floor; a. Transferring a resident from bed to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-11 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations of the meals and dietary services, reviews of the resident council and food committee meeting minutes, interviews with residents and staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to provide meals at regular time frames and in accordance with resident needs and preferences. (Residents R2, R28, R68, R97, R114 and R116). Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled food and nutrition services dated October 2001 revealed that it was the responsibility of the facility to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs and preferences. The policy also said that meals would be provided within the scheduled mealtime frame and in accordance with the resident's medication requirements. The policy also said that meals were scheduled at regular times to assure that each resident receives at least three meals a day. Mealtimes were to be posted in the facility in common areas. Observations of the noon meal services for 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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records, review of facility policy and interview with staff, it was determined facility did not ensure to develop and care plan related to a resident's diagnosis for one of six residents reviewed (Resident R133)Findings include: Review of facility policy 'Comprehensive Person- Centered Care Plans,' revised March 2022, indicated that the care plan reflects currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions.Review of Resident R133's clinical record revealed the diagnoses of osteoarthritis (type of arthritis that occurs when flexible tissue at the ends of bones wears down), osteoporosis (condition in which bones become weak and brittle), osteopenia (bone loss).Review of facility provided documentation revealed that on May 6, 2025, Resident R133 complained of pain to the right side, stating that maybe it occurred when Nurse aide, Employee E9, was repositioning her in bed. X-ray revealed a fracture to the 9th rib. Per hospital records resident is at high risk for fractures due to severe osteoporosis.Further review of facility provided…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 upon review of clinical records, interview with staff and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility did not ensure a resident receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, to a laceration identified after a fall incident for one resident of 24 resident records reviewed (Resident R17).Findings include:Review of Resident R17's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility in March 2022 with the diagnosis of dementia. The resident was assessed to be at high risk for falls. Review of the information submitted on July 9, 2025, to the State Survey Agency revealed that on July 7, 2025, Resident R17 was lowered to the floor by a nurse aide when the resident was being toileted. The resident, who was soiled received a shower after the incident and it was then the staff noted that the resident was bleeding under her right axillary (armpit area).Review of Resident R17's clinical record revealed no evidence of a clinical assessment completed at the time that the nor monitoring by nursing when 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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based upon review of clinical records and interviews with resident and staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident received services to maintain vision for one of 24 resident records reviewed (Resident R83). Findings include: Review of Resident R83's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility in November 2021, with the diagnosed with diabetes. Interview with the resident on September 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. stated it had been a while since her last eye doctor's appointment and said, I think I'm due Review of Resident R83's clinical record revealed an ophthalmologist appointment dated March 6, 2024, for suspected glaucoma and cataracts instructed to monitor annually. Further review of the medical record revealed no further appointments had been made. This was confirmed with the Director of Nursing on September 10, 2025, at 11:30 am when the facility could not locate a follow-up appointment for Resident R83's yearly evaluation for ophthalmology. 28 Pa Code 211.12(d)(3) Nursing services
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · 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
Based on review of clinical records and facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain ongoing communication between the facility and a dialysis provider for two of three residents receiving dialysis reviewed (Residents R1, and R32 ).Findings include:Review of facility policy 'Care of Resident with End Stage Renal Disease,' revised September 2010, stated that staff caring for residents with ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease), including residents receiving dialysis care outside the facility, shall be trained in the care and special needs of these residents, including education and training of staff on the type of assessment data that is to be gathered about resident's condition on a daily or per shift basis.Further review of policy indicated that agreements between this facility and the contracted ESRD facility include all aspects of how the resident's care will be managed, including: how information will be exchanged between the facilities.Review of Resident R32's clinical record revealed the medical diagnoses of end stage renal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Pharmacy Services Facility did not ensure to provide medications and/or biologicals, as ordered by the prescriber, to meet the needs of resident ([NAME]) Based on observations, review of resident's clinical record and interview with staff, it was determined that facility failed to ensure timely reordering and availability of mediations from pharmacy for one of four residents reviewed (Resident R24)Findings include:Review of facility policy 'Reordering, Changing, and Discontinuing Medication Orders.' Revised February 2023, indicated that refills can be requested via facilities EMAR system; this is the most preferred method. Facility may also request refills by placing the 'refill' strip portion of the medication label on the Refill Order Form and faxing it to the pharmacy.Review of facility's policy 'Administering Medications,' revised April 2019, indicated that if a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication shall indicate on the MAR,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations during medication administration, review of clinical records, facility policies and procedures, as well as interview with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent.Findings include: The facility's medication error rate was 8 percent based on observation of 25 medication opportunities with two medication errors observed.Review of facility policy 'Reordering, Changing, and Discontinuing Medication Orders,' revised February 2023, indicates that refills can be requested via facilities EMAR system; this is the most preferred method. Facility may also request refills by placing the 'refill' strip portion of the medication label on the Refill Order Form and faxing it to the pharmacy.Review of facility policy 'Administering Medications,' revised April 2019, indicates that medications are administered within one hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified.Review of Resident R24's clinical record revealed the diagnoses of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (A-Fib, a type of heart rhythm…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, observations of care and services, interviews with residents and staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that for one of two residents reviewed for oral health services, the facility failed to provide prompt and routine dental care for each resident. (Resident R9) Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled dental services dated December 2001, revealed that it was the responsibility of the facility to ensure that each resident had oral health examinations and assessments. The policy also said that it was the facility's responsibility to provide each resident with routine and emergency dental care. The policy indicated that the routine and emergency dental care would be provided by a contracted dental group. Observations of Resident R9 on September 8, 2025, revealed that this resident was in need of oral care. The need for dental cleaning of the resident's teeth was apparent upon speaking with the resident. An accumulation of food debris was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-11 · 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
Based on clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate medication administration records for one of 23 residents reviewed. (Resident R24)Findings include:Review of Resident R24's clinical record revealed the resident's diagnoses of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (A-Fib, a type of heart rhythm disorder where the heart's upper chambers beat irregularly and rapidly for a short period of time), high blood pressure, hemiplegia/hemiparesis (paralysis to one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side.Review of Resident R24's clinical record revealed a physician order for calcium + vitamin D3 oral tablet 600-5 mg-mcg supplement to be administered twice daily.Further review of Resident R24's clinical record revealed a physician order for Apixaban oral tablet 5 mg to be administered every 12 hours for A-FIB.During medication administration observation on September 10, 2025, at 10:40 am, Licensed nurse, Employee E8, did not administer supplement and Apixaban due to unavailability of medications;…
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 · F2024-10-03 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated emergency transfers and discharges for nine of nine months reviewed (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and September). Findings include: The facility was asked for evidence that the facility was notifying the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated emergency transfers and discharges for the last six months including the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September, 2024. On October 3, 2024 1 at 1:11 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator, Employee E1 stated that there was no evidence of the transfers and discharges being sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman due to the social worker being new to the facility. Employee E1 was asked to provide evidence that the notices were sent during the month of January, February, and March, 2024. Employee E1, the Nursing Home Administrator was not able to provide these notices. Resident R11…
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 24 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-03 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents and/or their representatives could file a grievance/concern anonymously by failing to ensure that grievance or complaint forms were available to residents or their representatives without asking for two of two units reviewed. (First floor and Second floor) Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Grievances/Complaints, Filing with a revision date of April 2017 states, Policy Statement- Residents and their representatives have the right to file grievances, either orally or in writing, to the facility staff or to the agency designated to hear grievances (e.g., the State Ombudsman). Further review of the facility policy revealed, Policy Interpretation and Implementation .5. Grievances and/or complaints may be submitted orally or in writing and may be filed anonymously. 13. If the grievance was filed anonymously, the grievance officer will inform the resident that a grievance has been anonymously filed on his or her…
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 · E2024-10-03 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure 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 observation, clinical record review, and interviews with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that dietary preferences were honored for three of 23 residents (Residents R72, R97, R65). Findings include: During a group interview on October 2, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., Resident R97 stated that he had told facility staff multiple times that he did not like ravioli or egg salad, but that they kept serving those items to him. During this same interview, Resident R72 stated that he was on a no-salt diet, but that the food they served him was too salty. Review of clinical documentation revealed that Resident R72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of his most recent MDS (a periodic assessment of resident care needs) completed on August 19, 2024, revealed that in section C- Cognitive Patterns, the resident had been assessed to have a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, an assessment which measures short term memory and orientation to person, place, time, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-03 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility documents, and interview with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that meals and snacks were provided at appropriate times for two of two floors observed (First and Second floor). Findings include: Review of the list of facility mealtimes revealed that lunch in the Second floor dining room is scheduled to be served at 12:00 p.m. every day. Observations of the Second floor dining conducted on September 30, 2024, at 11:45 a.m. revealed that residents were seated in the dining room, some with clothing protectors already in place. Continued observation revealed that the cart containing the lunch trays was delivered at 1:29 p.m. Staff began to distribute the trays at that time. The final tray was delivered at 1:48 p.m. Observations of the Second floor dining room conducted on October 2, 2024, at 12:07 p.m. revealed that again residents were seated in the dining room, some with clothing protectors in place. The cart of lunch trays was delivered to the floor at 1:28 p.m., with the final tray served at 1:35 p.m.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0572 — isolatedGive residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
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 clinical records, review of facility documentation, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to inform residents of their rights, rules, regulations, and responsibilities prior to and/or upon the resident's admission for three out of twenty-three residents reviewed. (Residents R29, R74, R317) Findings Include: Resident Council held on October 2, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. with ten awake, alert, and oriented residents revealed that when asked about resident rights being reviewed there were l residents stated they have not received a copy or had a copy reviewed with them. Review of Resident R29's clinical record reveled the resident was admitted on [DATE] and the resident's admission packet was not reviewed with the resident until August 21, 2024. Interview held with Admissions staff, Employee E3 on October 3, 2024 at 12:20 p.m. revealed Resident R29 was admitted on a Friday, and that she does not recall why the admission paperwork was not signed on that Friday. Employee E3…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0573 — isolatedLet each resident or the resident's legal representative access or purchase copies of all the resident's records.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, clinical record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide copies of medical records as requested in a timely manner for one of one residents reviewed for medical record request (Resident R317). Findings include: Review of a Medical Record and [NAME] Request letter provided by Employee E1 the Nursing Home Administrator stated the next of kin was requesting medical records from 1/1/2021 to 10/31/2022 in an electric format only. Interview on October 2, 2024, at 1:13 p.m. Employee E1, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that he received the request for medical records for Resident R317 on May 29, 2024. The NHA stated that the request was never fulfilled and that the records have not been sent out to the requestor. The NHA explained that he lost track of the request due to him needing to request the ability to send over the documents through the facility's corporate quality assurance team. Employee E1, the NHA stated he needed to transfer the information onto an external disk which was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility documentation, observation, review of clinical records, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure feeding assistance was provided for one of twenty-three residents reviewed. (Resident R80) Findings Include: Review of facility documentation titled, Facility Food Service Program states, Policy and Procedure: Red/Yellow Program- the facility has developed a program to identify residents more easily at mealtime who are at nutritional risk and is in need of supervision, partial assist, or extensive feeding assistance during mealtimes. The following outlines the procedure for flagging those residents. 1. The residents on the list will receive a RED sticker or YELLOW sticker on their meal tags in addition to their usual white napkin. Red Program-Extensive Feeding assistance. Observation of Resident R80 during the lunch meal on September 30, 2024 at 12:53 p.m. revealed the resident was seated in the dining room with two other residents at her table. During…
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 before2024-10-03 · 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 observation, review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure appropriate orders, care plan, and maintenance related to respiratory care were in place for one of twenty-three resident's reviewed. (Resident R83). Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled, CPAP/BiPAP Support with a revision date of March 2015 states, Purpose- 1. To provide the spontaneously breathing resident with continuous positive airway pressure with or without supplemental oxygen. 2. To improve arterial oxygenation (PaO2) in residents with respiratory insufficiency, obstructive sleep apnea, or restrictive/obstructive lung disease. 3. To promote resident comfort and safety. Observation on September 30, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. of Resident R83 in their room revealed the resident had a a CPAP machine bedside. Interview held with Resident R83 revealed the resident stated that the machine was a non-invasive CPAP machine that she had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
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 interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that a physician assessment was completed related to unplanned weight loss for one of 23 residents reviewed (Resident R21). Findings include: Review of clinical documentation for Resident R21 revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses of , dementia, diverticulitis of the large intestine (a condition wherein abnormal pouches which protrude off of the intestine, known as diverticulum, become inflamed, causing pain and disruption of normal bowel function), and type 2 diabetes. Review of the resident's weight documentation revealed that on August 9, 2024, the resident weighed 225 pounds and on September 20, 2024, the resident weighed 199 pounds. This was an 11.56 % weight loss in less than three months, which met the criteria of a significant weight loss. Continued review of her clinical documentation revealed a Nutrition Evaluation from the Registered Dietitian, Employee…
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 before2024-10-03 · 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 clinical record and interview with staff, it was determined facility did not ensure that medical records were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards of for two of 23 residents reviewed (Residents R6 and R58) Findings include: Review of clinical records for Resident R6 revealed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses of acute osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the left ankle and foot, open wound of the left foot, and peripheral vascular disease (a condition in which blood vessels outside of the brain and heart narrow, spasm, or become blocked; this can lead to reduced blood flow and potential tissue damage). Continued review revealed a wound care consultation note written by Employee E12, Registered Nurse Practitioner and wound specialist, written on September 30, 2024. The note stated, the resident has a treatment change .reference the recommended orders for updated treatments . Recommend changing treatment to left heel to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-27 · 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 observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with professional standards for two of two units observed. (Unit One and Unit Two) Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled, Storage of Medication with a revision date of April 2007 states, The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. 7. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrgiators, carts, and boxes.) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others. During observation of unit one on February 27, 2024 at 10:50 a.m. revealed the medication cart used by Licensed Nurse, Employee E6 outside room [ROOM NUMBER] on unit one was left unattended and unlocked. Licensed Nurse, Employee E6…
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 · D2024-02-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of resident's medical information on two or two nursing units. (Unit one and Unit Two) Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled, Resident Rights last revised December 2016 states, Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. The unauthorized release, access, or disclosure of resident information in prohibited. All release, access, or disclosure of resident information must be in accordance with current laws governing privacy of information issues. All inquiries concerning the release of resident information should be directed to the HIPPA Compliance Officer. During observation of unit one on February 27, 2024 at 10:50 a.m. revealed the medication cart used by Licensed Nurse, Employee E6 outside room [ROOM NUMBER] on unit one was left unattended with the computer screen open with identifiable information so any passerby could see…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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
Based on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to promote care for residents that maintains or enhances dignity and respect related to dining for two of two dining rooms observed. (First floor and second floor dining rooms.) Findings include: Observations of lunch dining on the first-floor dining room, on December 12, 2023, at 12:32 p.m. revealed the following: A table with four residents seated; two residents were served a meal at 12:36 p.m. and consumed 100% of their meal meanwhile two other residents were waiting to be served a meal. Resident R109 stated, I don't know why I always get my food last. Further observations revealed the residents' meal tray arrived at 12:54 p.m. Observations of lunch dining on the second-floor dining room, on December 13, 2023, at 12: 19 p.m. revealed the following: 16 out of 16 residents were dressed in aprons without permission. A table with four residents seated; one resident was served a meal at 12:34 p.m.; another resident was served a meal at 12:50 p.m.; and two residents were served at 12:55 p.m. A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include: A review of undated facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating Inservice, indicated that all foods should be dated upon receipt before being stored. Food labels must include the item name; the date of preparation/receipt/removal from freezer; and use by date . A tour of the Food Service Department was conducted on December 12, 2023, at 9:35 a.m. with Employee E5, Food Service Director (FSD), revealed the following concerns: Observations throughout the foodservice department, including the main kitchen area, dish room, pantry, and other common areas revealed the floors were dirty with food crumbs, crevices in the floor tile were filled with debris. Observations of the walk-in refrigerator revealed the following items were opened, unlabeled, and undated: sour cream; Swiss cheese, mozzarella cheese; two pork sausage bulk links; turkey roast; and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · 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
Based on a review of clinical records, facility policies and facility documentation, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise a comprehensive person-centered plan of care in a timely manner, for one of 26 clinical records reviewed (Residents R19). Findings include: Review of facility policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, revealed, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. Observations conducted on the first-floor nursing unit on December 12, 2023, at 1:17 p.m. revealed that Resident R19 had dentures placed on her table stand. Interview with the resident at the time of the observation revealed that Resident R19's dentures are no longer fitting, and that she has had a hard time chewing for months. Review of Resident R19's dental records dated, May 30, 2023, revealed that Resident R19's edentulous ridge (the raised part of the alveolar process after teeth have been removed) was moderate and that she was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 interviews with staff and review of the clinical record, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice related to failing to ensure that recommendations from the resident's cardiologist recommendations were followed for one out of 26 residents reviewed (Resident R24). Findings include: Review of the December 2023 physician orders for Resident R24 indicated that the resident was admitted into the facility on December 23, 2022, and had diagnoses of diabetes (a condition that related to an individual having blood sugar that is too high); hypertension (high blood pressure) and difficulty in walking. Review of the resident's Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS- a periodic assessment of a resident's needs) dated December 1, 2023 indicated that the resident was cognitively intact. Review of a consultation dated November 28, 2023, from the resident's cardiologist appointment on the referenced day, documented that the resident had a diagnosis of chronic systolic heart…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · 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
Based on observation, staff interviews, review of facility policy, and review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for oxygen administration for two of 26 residents observed. (Resident R79 and Resident R42). Findings include: Review of facility policy on Oxygen Administration revealed that under section Purpose revealed that the purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Under section Steps in the Procedure# 8. Turn on the Oxygen. Unless otherwise ordered, start the flow of Oxygen at the rate of 2 to 3 liters per minute. #10. Adjust the flow of Oxygen device so that it is comfortable for the resident and proper flow of Oxygen is being administered. Review of Resident R79's physician's order dated February 9, 2023, revealed an order for Oxygen orders 2 liters/minute, via nasal canula, continuous oxygen every shift. Observation of Resident R79 conducted on December 12, 2023, at 10:18 am during the tour of the second floor revealed that Resident R79 was on oxygen concentrator via nasal cannula…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of facility documents, observations, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for one resident and failed to provide necessary pharmaceutical services for one of five residents reviewed. (Resident R86 and Resident R4). Findings include: Review of facility policy on controlled substances revealed that under section Policy Statement, the facility shall comply with all laws and regulations and other requirements related to storage, disposal and documentation of scheduled II and another controlled substances. Under section Policy Interpretation and Implementation, #3. Controlled substances must be, counted upon delivery. The nurse receiving the medication, along with the person delivering the medication, must count the controlled substances together. Both individuals must sign the designated controlled substance record. #4. If the count is correct, an individual resident controls substance record must be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, review of facility documents and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with professional standards for one of two medication rooms observed (second floor medication room). Findings include: Review of facility policy on controlled substances revealed that under section Policy Statement, the facility shall comply with all laws and regulations and other requirements related to storage, disposal and documentation of scheduled II and another controlled substances. Under section Policy Interpretation and Implementation, #3. Controlled substances must be, counted upon delivery. The nurse receiving the medication, along with the person delivering the medication, must count the controlled substances together. Both individuals must sign the designated controlled substance record. #4. If the count is correct, an individual resident controls substance record must be made for each resident who will be receiving a controlled substance. Do…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, review of clinical records, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure therapeutic diets were served per physician orders for three of 26 residents reviewed (Residents R36, R31 and R71). Findings include: A review of facility policy titled, Therapeutic Diets, revised October 2017, indicted that therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician to support the resident's treatment and plan of care. Review of Resident R36's clinical records revealed a physician order dated, June 26, 2023, for a therapeutic diet, Puree texture, nectar consistency. A review of Resident R36's Speech Language Pathology discharge recommendations dated, September 14, 2023, revealed Resident R36 was recommended Nectar Thick Liquids. A review of Resident R31's Speech Language Pathology discharge recommendations dated, October 23, 2023, Resident R31 was recommended Nectar Thick Liquids. A review of Resident R31's clinical records revealed a physician's order dated, November 3, 2023, for a therapeutic diet, pureed texture, Nectar consistency.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and an interview with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that garbage and refuse was disposed properly. Findings include: An initial tour of the Food Service Department conducted on December 12, 2023, at approximately 9:35 a.m. with the Food Service Director (FSD), Employee E5, revealed the following concerns in the outdoor garbage and receiving area: Debris and plastics (cups, lids, dirty gloves, condiment packets, saran wrap) was observed around the trashcan area. Observations revealed piles of spoiled fruit droppings (premature shedding of fruit from a tree before fully ripe) throughout the receiving and garbage area with unpleasant odors, which created an unsafe and unsanitary environment in the main food receiving area. Interview on December 12, 2023, at approximately 9:45 a.m. with the FSD confirmed the above-mentioned findings and acknowledged that the current receiving, and dumpster area was unsafe and allowed pest harborage (conditions or place where pests can obtain water or food, nest, or obtain shelter). 29 Pa. Code 201.18…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of the facility's infection control policies and procedures and clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to consistently implement an antibiotic stewardship program and maintain a system to effectively monitor antibiotic usage for one of six sampled residents for unnecessary medication usage (Resident R86). Findings include: A review of facility policy entitled Infection Prevention and Control Plan last reviewed October 2023, revealed The facility assures there is an infection control program that is effective for investigating, controlling and preventing infections. This facility will assign an infection control coordinator to collect data, monitor, analyze, and make recommendations. The data will be submitted to the AQPI committee monthly. Review of infection control protocols submitted by the facility during the survey revealed that the facility followed McGeer's Criteria to evaluate and monitor the use the use of antibiotics. Review of physician orders for Resident R86 dated November 18, 2023, revealed medication orders for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-10-03 · tag F0575 — patternPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to post contact information for the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program as required for two of four nursing units that was accessible to residents and their representatives. (First floor and Second Floor) Findings Include: On October 1, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. a facility tour was conducted with the Director of Social Services Employee E7 to observe where the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program postings were on the first floor and second floor units. Observation during the tour of the first-floor unit revealed there was no information posted as required for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Observation during the tour of the second-floor unit revealed there was no Pennsylvania Department of Health or Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman information posted as required. These findings were confirmed by Employee E7 the Director of Social Services. 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.
- No harm found · B2024-10-03 · tag F0577 — patternAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and an interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the most recent Department of Health Survey results were in a place readily accessible to residents and visitors for two or two nursing units. (First floor and Second Floor) Findings Include: On October 1, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. a facility tour was conducted with the Director of Social Services Employee E7 to observe where the Department of Health Survey binder was located in the facility. Observation of the facilities front lobby revealed the Department of Health survey results binder was behind the desk in the main lobby not accessible for residents or visitors without having to ask. Review of binder revealed the information in the binder also was not up to date. The last results in the binder were from the annual survey dated March 11, 2022. The Director of Social Services Employee E 7 confirmed that this was the only location in the facility where the survey results were available. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(a) Management
- No harm found · C2023-12-15 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately display facility daily nurse staffing hours as required for one of four days. Findings Include: On September 15, 2023, at 11:04 a.m. observations at the front receptionist desk revealed staffing data was posted for the previous day, December 13, 2023. Further observation revealed that the staffing indicated the projected number of staff, but the actual number was left blank. Further observations in the lobby area, including the front and back doors of the facility, the first and second- floor nursing units failed to reveal posted staffing data. Interview with the facility receptionist, Employee E10, on December 15, 20253 at approximately 11:06 a.m. confirmed the above-mentioned findings, that there was no staffing data posted anywhere in the lobby area. Interview with the first-floor unit manager, Employe E17, on December 15, 2023, at approximately 11:10 a.m. confirmed that there was no staffing data posted on the first floor. Interview with he first floor Unit Manager, Employee E18,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-06-27
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES — 7 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 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GELLEY, LEAH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| GELLEY, MEIR | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 95% | since 01/01/2013 |
| NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/16/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 88% 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. This home reported $660K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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
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
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 395628. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.