Complete Care At Berkshire LLC
5501 Perkiomen Avenue, Reading, PA 19606 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (610) 779-0600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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
- the CMS record shows $13,070 in federal fines (most recent 2026-04-25)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.2% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 33.3% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.1% | 17.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.0% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.4% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.7% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 63.7% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.7% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 1.4% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.32 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
47.0% 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 177 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 104 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 47% 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 | 47.0%CMS range 40.5–55.8 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 8.2–15.3 | 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 | 54.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.4% | 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 | 51.9% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 0.7% | 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 | 2.0% | 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 | 6.4%CMS range 3.8–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 120.8 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.85 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.39 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-05-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary supervision to monitor a resident's whereabouts and prevent an elopement (unauthorized departure from the facility) for one of seven sampled residents at risk for elopement. (Resident 1) This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation. The incident has been identified as past non-compliance. Findings include:Review of facility policy entitled, Elopements and Wandering Residents, dated September 1, 2024, revealed staff were to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopements and be vigilant in responding to alarms in a timely manner. Clinical record review revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Vascular Dementia (reduced blood flow to the brain leading to cognitive decline) and Anxiety. Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set assessment (periodic evaluation of resident…
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 before2026-06-17 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two of two floors. (First and Second floor)Findings include:Observations on June 17, 2026, from 9:41 a.m. through 1:10 p.m., revealed the following: Gloves and wipes covered by a brown substance were observed on the floor in the First floor shower room along with various pieces of garbage. A green residue was observed beneath the shower heads. An overflowing hamper of dirty clothes along with several pieces of clothing were observed on the floor in the Second floor shower room. A green residue was observed beneath the shower heads.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on four of four nursing units. (First West, First North, Second West, and Second North) Findings include:Observations on April 25, 2026, from 10:30 a.m. through 12:30 p.m., revealed the following environmental issues:In the First floor Lounge, the wood wall trim by the entrance door was marred. The wall above the television had an area of peeling wallpaper which exposed a black area behind it. The wall next to the window by the television had a substance that appeared as multiple black circular marks. Observations in the hallway of the First [NAME] and First North units revealed the following: The wall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had black marks along the length of it and there were two stained ceiling tiles. There was one ceiling tile with brown stains next to room [ROOM NUMBER]. The wall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had black marks and two areas of dried brown liquid.The wall between room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-20 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, results of a test tray audit, resident interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at an appetizing temperature on one of four nursing units. (2nd Floor North)Findings include: Review of Food Committee Minutes from December 2025 through February 2026, revealed that residents had stated that their food was served cold and was not palatable. In a review of Grievances from February 2026, it was reported that the beverages were not palatable. Review of facility documentation entitled, Test Tray Meal Evaluation, revealed that the hot entree, starch, and vegetable should be greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and the milk should be below or equal to 41 degrees F at point of service to the residents. Results of a test tray audit conducted on March 20, 2026, at 1:33 p.m., revealed the fish sticks were served at a temperature of 107 degrees F, the tater tots were served at a temperature of 113 degrees F, the mixed vegetables were served at a temperature of 118…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-11-20 · 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 facility policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food in a sanitary manner in the dietary department and on one of two nursing units. (1st floor) Findings include:Review of the facility policy entitled, Labeling and Dating Inservice, dated August 25, 2025, revealed that staff were to discard items that were past their use-by date.Observations during the kitchen tour on November 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., revealed the following:In the freezer, there were bags of French toast, muffins, and fish patties that were opened and not dated. There was a bag of dinner rolls and a box of blueberries that were not sealed and were opened to air. On the floor inside the freezer, there were two areas of a frozen, brown liquid substance that had shoe marks in both. In the walk-in cooler, there was an opened package of breakfast ham that was labeled use-by November 15, 2025. In the preparation area, the utensil drawer had three utensils that had a dried, sticky substance in the serving piece of each. Inside the microwave…
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 · D2025-11-20 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 document the rationale for the continued use of as needed (PRN) anti-anxiety medications for two of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 2 and 3)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), malnutrition, and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had no cognitive impairment and had been administered an anti-anxiety medication. On September 16, 2025, a physician ordered for staff to administer an anti-anxiety medication (lorazepam) every 12 hours as needed for anxiety. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that the anti-anxiety medication had been administered three times in November 2025. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included dysphagia, heart failure, and anxiety. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the current status of one of 25 sampled residents. (Resident 86)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 86 was placed on hospice on March 28, 2025. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], incorrectly indicated in Section O (Special treatments, Procedures, and Programs) that the resident was not on hospice during the previous seven days.In an interview on November 20, 2025, at 9:20 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that Resident 86's MDS assessment was inaccurate.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-21 · 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
Based on facility policy review, observation, record review, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate grooming and hygiene for one of 26 sampled residents. (Resident 25) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Resident Showers/Bathing, last reviewed November 19, 2024, revealed that staff were to assist residents with hygiene needs following bathing. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 25 had diagnoses that included anxiety and osteoporosis. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) and had fragile skin. Staff were to check fingernail length and trim and clean on bath days as needed, and her fingernails were to be kept short. On November 19, 2024, at 12:56 p.m., the resident was observed out of bed in her wheelchair. Her fingernails were long and dirty; there was a dark colored substance underneath the nails. The resident stated that her fingernails needed to be cut. On November 20, 2024, at 10:24 a.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-15 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two of two nursing units. (First Floor, Second Floor) Findings include: During the environmental tour of the First Floor nursing unit on December 12, 2023, at various times, the following was observed: The linoleum floor was cracked, broken, and/or taped in resident rooms 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, and 133. The floor was sticky in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a urine odor in resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. Toilets were soiled with a brown substance in resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. There was a rusty toilet seat in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The first floor resident lounge refrigerator was soiled with a brown substance inside. During an environmental tour of the Second Floor nursing unit on December 14, 2023, at various times, the following was observed: The linoleum floor was taped in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. Light bulbs were not working in resident rooms [ROOM NUMBER]. Toilets…
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 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 24 sampled residents. (Residents 7, 107) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 7 had diagnoses that included hemiplegia and depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was oriented and needed substantial/maximal assistance from staff for bathing. The resident was to receive a shower twice per week on Mondays and Thursdays. During an interview on December 12, 2023, at 12:05 p.m., the resident reported that she preferred to take a shower twice a week and was not offered the opportunity to do so. Review of documentation in the clinical record revealed that the resident was not offered a shower seven of nine scheduled times from November 13, 2023, through December 11, 2023. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 107 had diagnoses 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 · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was complete to accurately reflect the resident's status for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 32) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Sections C (Cognitive Patterns) and D (Mood) of Resident 32's MDS assessment dated [DATE], was incomplete. In an interview on December 15, 2023, 12:57 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the identified MDS sections were not completed during the assessment period to reflect the resident's current status.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · 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 clinical record review, observation, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for three of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 44, 91, 116) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 44 had diagnoses that included tremor, osteoarthritis left hand, and major depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had no memory impairment and required assistance from staff with daily hygiene and grooming. Review of the current care plan revealed that staff was to provide the resident assistance with hygiene. Observations on December 12, 2023, at 2:16 p.m. and December 14, 2023, at 1:09 p.m., revealed that the resident had long and jagged fingernails with a dark brown substance under the nails. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 91 had diagnoses that included generalized muscle weakness and mild cognitive impairment and end stage renal disease.…
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
$13,070 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,070 — penalty dated 2026-04-25
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 COMPLETE CARE — 85 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 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 84 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 84; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC PA OPCOS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2021 |
| PC WTA OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2021 |
| SMS 2021 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2021 |
| SCHWARTZ, HERSHEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/01/2021 |
| STEIN, SHALOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2021 |
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 70% 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 $766K 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 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395938. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-20, 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.