Willowcrest
Albert Einstein Med Ctr, Philadelphia, PA 19141 · Non profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds · (215) 456-8632 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.8% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.5% | 22.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.8% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
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.
72.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 167 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.1% 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 86 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 1.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 72.4%CMS range 65.6–78.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.9%CMS range 6.5–13.4 | 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 | 72.1% | 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 | 60.5% | 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 | 62.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.7% | 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 | 5.4%CMS range 3.1–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.73 | 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 44 beds and averages 35.8 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 8 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 6.17 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.61 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.42 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.09 to 1.05 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-01-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of facility policy 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: Observations conducted on December 29, 2025, at 9:56 a.m. with the Food Service Director (FSD), Employee E4, and Chef, Employee E5, in the main kitchen revealed food items were improperly labeled, undated, uncovered, or stored in a manner that could lead to contamination. Observations in the main refrigerator revealed blue cheese (2lbs- pounds) that was undated and additional 3 lbs. without a use-by-date; 3lbs of Monterey [NAME] cheese with no date; 5 lbs. [NAME] cheese with use-by dates of 12/12 and 12/30; 5lbs [NAME] cheese that was undated; mild cheddar slices that were opened, exposed, and undated; and Swiss cheese that was opened and undated. Continued observation revealed three 4-8 lb. bags of beef vegetable soup without thaw or pull dates,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-05 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents and/or their representative received written notice notifying them of the transfer and the reason for the move in writing and in the language and manner they understood for one of three closed records reviewed (Resident R50).Findings include: Review of Resident R50's medical records revealed that on December 11, 2025, the resident was admitted to the hospital for shortness of breath. Continued review failed to reveal documentation of a written notification to the residents or resident's representative notifying them of the transfer and the reasons for the move in writing. Interview with the facility administrator, Employee E1 on January 5, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. confirmed this finding. Continued interview with the facility administrator, Employee E1 on January 5, 2026, at 1:05 p.m. confirmed the above-mentioned findings and stated that it is not facility practice providing the residents and/or their representative with a written notice for transfers. 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-05 · 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 review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise a resident care plan with new interventions status prior and post a fall incident for one of 12 residents reviewed (Resident R24).Findings include:Review of facility policy titled Resident Assessment and Plan of Care revised July 2018 states the process of systematically reviewing a resident's physical functional mental and psychological status to identify strengths and weaknesses for which the interdisciplinary team can develop a plan of care for each resident. Review of the November 20, 2025, therapy note assessed Resident R24 with impairments and limitations with the resident's ADL's (activities of daily living), bed mobility, cognitive, decreased knowledge of condition, decreased knowledge of precautions, and safety awareness. Therapist noted that the resident tended to favor the resident's left side (weak side). To incorporate bed mobility and safe positioning in bed, the nursing staff were notified to use a wedge pillow with dycem…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-05 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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 review of resident clinical records, facility documentation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an incontinent resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the appropriate services with toileting for one of 12 resident records reviewed (Resident R24).Findings include: Review of Resident R24's occupational therapy (OT) assessment notes dated November 20, 2025, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a history of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain), right Middle Cerebral Artery (aka MCA stroke) in October 2025 which left the resident with left residual weakness and left sided body pain. The therapist assessment indicated the resident's impairments included impaired safety/judgment, and functional communication impairments, that included Dysarthria, (speech disorder leading to slurred or low speech) and aphasia (a language disorder caused by brain damage). The same assessment noted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and treatment were provided in accordance with physician orders for one of 12 residents reviewed. (Resident R3)Findings Include: Review of resident R3's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including fractures, foot drop (inability lifting the front part of the foot). The resident was assessed with a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of nine, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Continued review of Resident R3's clinical records revealed a physician order dated December 1, 2025, for multipodus boots to left foot drop (orthopedic positioning boots used to protect and properly align the foot and ankle). The physician order failed to indicate parameters for use, including duration, timing, and conditions for use of the mulitpodus boots. Interview conducted on December 30, 2025, at 11:20 a.m. with registered Nurse,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-05 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was revealed that the facility failed to assess and implement interventions to ensure acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident R16). Findings include: Review of facility policy, Height and Weight Protocol dated January 1, 2025, revealed that upon admission, residents' weight and height will be recorded and residents with a weekly weight gain or weight loss of five pounds will be re-weighed. Review of Resident R16's clinical records revealed that on December 12, 2025, the resident's admission weight was documented as 94 pounds. A follow-up interview conducted on January 2, 2026, at 11:20 a.m. with Registered Dietitian (RD), Employee E3, revealed that the admission weight of 94 pounds was not transcribed into the system and was therefore not referenced by the nutrition services team when assessing Resident R16's weight changes. Continued record review revealed that on December 17, 2025, Resident R16's weight was documented as 104.7 pounds,…
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 · D2025-01-30 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor 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 observation, resident group interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that grievance forms were available and accessible to residents and failed to provide an opportunity for anonymous grievances to be submitted for three of three residents reviewed. (Reisdents R76, R80 and R125) Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Grievance Policy for Residents and Resident Representatives, dated 2017, revealed each resident has the right to voice grievances and recommend changes for improvement to staff, administration, or outside representative of his/her choice, without discrimination or reprisal. Also, a prominent posting will be located in the lobby and 3rd floor with Grievance Official contact information. A resident group interview was conducted on January 28, 2025 at 11:04 a.m. with Residents R76, R80, R125, who were alert and orientated, and reported that they did not know how to file grievances anonymously and do not know where the grievance forms are located. Observation on the 3rd floor revealed no grievance forms or…
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 · D2025-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of facility policies, review of facility documentation, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program related to Respiratory Precautions for one resident on respiratory precaution of seven residents reviewed (Resident R122). Findings include: Review of facility policy on Enhance Respiratory Precaution reveled that under section PURPOSE: To prevent transmission of emerging or highly pathogenic infections spread by means of respiratory route. Under section POLICY: Any patient known or suspected to have an infection with an emerging or highly pathogenic organism that may be transmitted by means of the respiratory route shall be placed on Enhanced Respiratory Precaution. Section GENERAL SCOPE OF PRACTICE: #D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); Prior to entering the room, staff shall perform hand hygiene and then don appropriate respiratory protection (N95- a respiratory protective device…
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 before2024-02-08 · 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 review of facility policies, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the physician orders related to medication administration for one of 3 residents reviewed (Residents R1). Findings include: Review of Resident R1's clinical record indicated admission date January 29, 2024, and had diagnoses including ventricular tachcardi (is a type of abnormal heart rhythm (arrhythmia) characterized by a rapid heartbeat originating from the heart's lower chambers, the ventricles), coronary artery disease (cad) (condition characterized by the narrowing or blockage of the coronary arteries, which supply oxygen-rich blood to the heart muscle), heart failure, atrial fibrillation, (which is the most common type of heart arrhythmia). Review of physician orders indicated that Resident R1 was prescribed Melatonin 9 milligrams (mg) one a day in the evening on January 29, 2024 Interview conducted on February 8, 2024, at 10:12 a.m. with License nurse, unit manager, Employee E5 confirmed that the facility policy for medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JEFFERSON HEALTH CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/08/1984 |
| THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/04/2021 |
| US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 06/18/2009 |
| JAMES, DIXIEANNE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| WYATT, WALTER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| BEN-MAIMON, CAROLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| ESQUENAZI, ALBERTO | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| GANTMAN, LEWIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| JASPAN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| KLEHR, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| KORMAN, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| KRAFTSOW-KOGAN, ELLEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| LEVITTIES, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| LIPSTEIN, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| MELENDEZ, JOSE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| PIERCE, DEBORAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| RAYMOND, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| REICHLIN, LAWRENCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| ROVINSKY, MADALYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| STEIN, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| WEISS, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| BERK, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 395515. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-05, 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.