Sanatoga Center
225 Evergreen Road, Pottstown, PA 19464 · For profit - Partnership · 130 certified beds · (610) 323-1800 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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) | 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 | 2 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 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 23.4% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.6% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.2% | 10.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 28.7% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.3% | 20.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.2% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.7% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 65.9% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.3% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.9% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.30 | 1.62 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.67 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
57.9% 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 361 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.7% 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 120 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 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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 | 57.9%CMS range 54.3–64.5 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 8.1–13.1 | 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 | 51.7% | 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 | 45.8% | 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 | 45.0% | 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 | 96.5% | 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 | 98.0% | 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 | 96.2% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 4.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.8–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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 130 beds and averages 114.6 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.34 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.83 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.62 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 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.48 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess a resident's capability to self-administer medications for two of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 54 and 118) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Medications: Self-Administration, last reviewed May 15, 2026, revealed that a resident may exercise the right to self-administer medications when determined that this practice was safe. It was the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team to determine the following issues with regards to resident self-administration of medications: resident safety to self-administer medications, location of medication administration, determine who would be responsible for storage, and documentation of medication administration. If the resident indicated a desire to self-administer his or her medications, the Interdisciplinary Team would complete the Self-Administration of Medications UDA (User Defined Assessment) 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 · Dcited before2026-06-26 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for two of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 3, 82) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included chronic heart failure and diabetes. A physician's order dated June 6, 2026, directed staff to administer a blood pressure medication (midodrine hydrochloride) three times a day for orthostatic hypotension. Staff were not to give the medication if Resident 3's systolic blood pressure (the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was greater than 120 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). A physician's order dated June 20, 2026, directed staff to weigh Resident 3 daily and to notify the physician if there was a weight gain greater than five pounds in one week or two pounds in one day. Review of Resident 3's June 2026 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Task Administration Record revealed that staff administered the midodrine hydrochloride three times 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 · D2025-07-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two of two nursing units. (First and Second floors)Findings include:Observations on July 22, 2025, from 9:30 a.m. through at 2:30 p.m. and July 25, 2025, from 8:00 a.m. through 12:00 p.m. revealed the following:The wall between the door and dresser in room [ROOM NUMBER] was damaged. The wall beside the resident's bed was streaked with dried liquid in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A.room [ROOM NUMBER]-A had scuffed and peeling wallpaper, and a broken handle on the resident's dresser.The wall beside the resident's bed was streaked with dried liquid in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A.The wall beneath the towel rack in the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] was damaged.The wall was damaged at the baseboard at the closet in room [ROOM NUMBER].room [ROOM NUMBER] A and B bedside tables had chipped wood on the tops. The second floor bathing room shower stall on the right side of the room had a thick black substance on 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 · Dcited before2025-07-25 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for four of 22 sampled residents. (Residents 5, 8, 9, and 10)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 had diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing.) A physician's order dated July 11, 2025, directed staff to weigh Resident 5 two times per week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, for four weeks. Review of Resident 5's medication administration record (MAR) revealed that staff failed to weigh the resident as ordered on July 11, 18, and 22, 2025.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 8 had diagnoses that included post traumatic seizures, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, and diabetes mellitus. A physician's order dated January 31, 2025, directed staff to weigh the resident every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of Resident 8's MARs revealed that staff failed to weigh the resident as ordered five times in April 2025, once in May 2025, and once in June 2025.Clinical record review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-25 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications with the potential for abuse (controlled substances) were secured in a locked, permanently affixed compartment at all times in one of two medication rooms. (Second Floor medication room) Findings include: Observation on July 25, 2025, at 11:50 a.m., revealed that the Second Floor medication room refrigerator contained four two-milligram vials of a Schedule IV anti-anxiety medication (lorazepam). The vials of medication were in a locked box, but the box was easily removable and not permanently affixed to the refrigerator. The refrigerator was not locked. In an interview on July 25, 2025, at 2:20 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated that the controlled medication storage box should have been permanently affixed to the refrigerator. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-02 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, review of facility documentation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a licensed practical nurse (LPN) maintained professional standards of quality care in following the established policies and procedures of the facility set forth in the Pennsylvania Code Title 49 Professional and Vocational standards for one of five residents sampled for medication administration. (Resident 1) Findings include: Review of Pennsylvania Code Title 49, Chapter 21, Subchapter B. Practical Nurses, revealed guidelines which included that an LPN shall follow the written, established policies and procedures of the facility. Review of the facility policy entitled, Medication Errors, last reviewed, July 1, 2024, revealed that medication errors that occurred at the center would be immediately reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) or designee and would be investigated. The nurse who discovered the medication error would enter the incident into the Risk Management portal and would initiate a change in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-16 · 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
Based on staff interview and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food and maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department, on one of two unit kitchens (Bistro 1), and on one of two unit pantries (1st Floor). Findings include: In an interview on August 13, 2024, at 9:50 a.m., Dietary Manager (DM) 1 stated that all opened food items were to be labeled with a date. In an interview on August 16, 2024, at 10:35 a.m., the Administrator stated that refrigerated foods were to be discarded after seven days and that foods in the unit pantry were to have the resident's name and date written on them by staff. Observations of the main kitchen on August 13, 2024, at 9:50 a.m., revealed the following: In dry storage, there was a bottle of syrup removed from the original packaging that was not dated. In the walk-in cooler, there was an opened package of lunch meat that was not dated. In the snack reach-in cooler, there was a box of raw pork that was dated August 1, 2024. In the freezer truck, there were three opened garden burgers that were not dated.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-16 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for two of 25 sampled residents. (Residents 23, 111) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 23 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure). A physician's order dated December 25, 2023, directed staff to administer a medication (carvedilol) two times a day for hypertension. Staff were not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was less than 110 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). Review of Resident 23's medication administration records revealed that staff administered the medication four times in July 2024 and three times in August 2024 outside of the ordered parameters. In an interview on August 16, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed the medication should not have been…
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 · D2024-06-08 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's physician and responsible party of changes in condition for one of nine sampled residents. (Resident CL1) Findings include: A review of the facility policy entitled, Notification of Change in Condition, revealed that staff were to notify the physician and resident representative immediately if there was a change in condition. Clinical record review revealed that Resident CL1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) and repeated falls. On May 28, 2024, a nurse noted a reddened moisture associated skin dermatitis to Resident CL1's sacrum. There was no documented evidence that Resident CL1's physician and resident representative were made aware of the change in condition. In an on June 8, 2024, at 1:41 p.m., the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN 1) confirmed there was no evidence that Resident CL1's…
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 before2024-05-28 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for one of six sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included hepatorenal syndrome (progressive kidney failure caused by severe liver damage), and cirrhosis of the liver (severe scarring of the liver). Review of Resident 1's hospital discharge instructions dated May 9, 2024, revealed R1 was to receive Rifaximin (an antibiotic used to lower the risk of a decline in brain function in adults with liver failure) two times a day. On May 10, 2024, the physician ordered for Resident 1 to receive Rifaximin two times a day. There was no documented evidence that Resident 1 had received the Rifaximin as ordered by the physician until May 18, 2024, when the medication was brought in by family. In an interview on May 28, 2024 at 1:54 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed…
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 · D2024-01-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to enhance each resident's quality of life by offering showers as scheduled to two of five sampled residents. (Residents 2, 3) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included congestive heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was oriented and required substantial assistance from staff for bathing. The resident was to receive a shower twice per week on Monday and Thursday. During an interview on January 23, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., the resident reported that she preferred to take a shower twice a week and was not offered the opportunity to do so. Resident 1 stated that she would not refuse the opportunity to shower. Review of documentation in the clinical record revealed that the resident was not offered a shower five of seven scheduled times in the past 30 days. Clinical record review revealed that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-05 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, observation, facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the pre-approved menus on two of two nursing units. Findings include: During interviews on November 5, 2023, from 12:30 p.m., through 1:45 p.m., Residents 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 stated that menu items are frequently substituted without notification or not received. Residents 5, 6, 7, and 8 stated that bacon was on the menu for breakfast that morning and they did not receive it. Review of the facility menus revealed the breakfast meal on November 5, 2023, was to include oatmeal, French toast, bacon, milk and fruit juice. The lunch menu on November 5, 2023, was to include maple sage turkey, seasoned peas, cornbread dressing, pumpkin pie with whipped topping, milk, assorted beverage, and a dinner roll. Observation of Resident 9's lunch meal on November 5, 2023, at 12:45 p.m., revealed that staff served maple sage turkey, collard greens, pumpkin pie without the whipped topping, and cranberry juice. Review of Resident 9's meal ticket at that time…
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 · C2025-07-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — widespreadProvide 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 observation, clinical record review, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate grooming and hygiene for three of 22 sampled residents. (Residents 7, 9, and 116)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 7 had diagnoses that included polyneuropathy, cognitive communication deficit, and congestive heart failure. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 7 was alert and oriented and required moderate assistance with personal hygiene. Review of the care plan dated May 24, 2025, revealed that the resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) including grooming and bathing. On July 23, 2025, at 11:43 a.m., the resident was observed in his wheelchair. His fingernails were long and dirty. The resident stated that his fingernails needed to be cut. On July 24, 2025, at 12:04 p.m., the resident was again observed in his wheelchair. His fingernails…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 183 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 183; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GENESIS PA HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2011 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GENESIS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GENESIS OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/07/2025 |
| GHC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| BERG, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2012 |
| MORRIS, DIANE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| MUNDELL, GAIL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/20/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 395904. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-26, 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.