Scranton Health Care Center
2933 McCarthy Street, Scranton, PA 18505 · For profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds · (570) 341-6676 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Nov 2024
- a high number of inspection citations overall (23) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,570 in federal fines (most recent 2023-12-21)
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 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 | 17.5% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 10.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.2% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.8% | 93.5% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.1% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.4% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 64.9% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.5% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.1% | 9.5% | 12.0% | 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.
42.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.9% 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 55 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 42.8%CMS range 33.7–50.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.4–14.5 | 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 | 50.9% | 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 | 58.2% | 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 | 54.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 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 | 1.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.6%CMS range 3.3–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.68 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 44 beds and averages 39.4 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.77 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.72 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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.
23 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of select facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness in the food and nutrition services department. Findings include: Food safety and inspection standards for safe food handling indicate that everything that comes in contact with food must be kept clean, and food that is mishandled can lead to foodborne illness. Safe steps in food handling, cooking, and storage are essential in preventing foodborne illness. You cannot always see, smell, or taste harmful bacteria that may cause illness, according to the USDA (the United States Department of Agriculture, also known as the Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to food). A review of a facility policy titled Kitchen Sanitation and Cleaning Schedules Policy, last reviewed by the facility on May 26, 2026,…
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 before2026-06-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 a review of clinical records, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) assessments, the RAI User's Manual, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed accurately and within required federal timeframes for two of 15 residents reviewed (Residents 23 and 28). The facility failed to complete a required OBRA Discharge Assessment within the required timeframe and accurately document the resident's discharge information for one resident (Resident 23) and failed to ensure the MDS accurately reflected a resident's Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), status for one resident (Resident 28).Findings include: The Long Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally required standardized assessment used to evaluate a resident's physical, psychological, and psychosocial status and to develop an individualized plan of care) dated October…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · 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 observation, review of clinical records, review of facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide care and services consistently with accepted professional standards of nursing practice by failing to implement a physician-ordered bowel management protocol and notify the practitioner as directed for one of 15 residents reviewed (Resident 7). Findings include: According to the American Academy of Family Physicians (one of the largest medical organizations in the US founded to promote the science and art of family medicine) the primary goal of constipation management is improvement of symptoms and the regular passage of soft, formed stools without straining at least three times per week. A review of Resident 7's clinical record revealed physician orders dated December 30, 2025, for a bowel management protocol to be initiated after 48 hours without a bowel movement, consisting of: Step 1: Administer MiraLAX (polyethylene glycol 3350, a medication that draws water into the bowel to soften stool) 17 grams mixed in 4 to 8 ounces of liquid.…
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 before2026-06-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, a review of clinical records, the alternating air mattress manufacturer's instructions, select facility policies, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to consistently implement physician-ordered and care-planned interventions to prevent the development of pressure injuries for one of 15 residents reviewed (Resident 14). Findings include: According to the National Library of Medicine, pressure ulcers develop when capillaries supplying the skin and tissues are compressed enough to impede circulation, leading ultimately to tissue death. Normal blood pressure within capillaries ranges from 20 to 40 mmHg (millimeters of mercury is a standard unit of measurement for pressure; it is used to measure blood pressure by expressing how hard the blood pushes against the walls of the arteries). Keeping the external pressure less than 32 mmHg should be sufficient to prevent the development of pressure ulcers. However, capillary blood pressure may be less than 32 mmHg in critically…
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 before2025-08-21 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to honor and incorporate the resident's expressed preferences and choices into the care planning process for one of 14 sampled residents (Resident 2).Findings include:A review of Resident 2's clinical record revealed Resident 2 was admitted to the facility February 28, 2025, with diagnoses to include alcoholic cirrhosis of liver (liver becomes damaged and can no longer process the fat cells that typically turn into energy, nutrients, and waste) with ascites (accumulation of fluid causing abdominal swelling). A review of a Resident 2's quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care), dated July 11, 2025, revealed Resident 2 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 (brief interview for mental status, a tool to assess the residents attention, orientation and ability 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 before2025-08-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, a review of clinical records, resident observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) for one of 14 residents sampled (Resident 38). Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing the Minimum Data Set (MDS a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated October 2024, requires the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status, a registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals, and the assessment process includes direct observation, as well as communication with the resident and direct care staff on all shifts. A clinical records 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 · Dcited before2025-08-21 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, select facility policy and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement individualized pain management programs, consistent with professional standards of practice, to meet the pain management needs and attempt non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain prior to the administration of a narcotic pain medication prescribed on an as needed basis for one resident out of 14 residents reviewed (Resident 6). Findings include: According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Interagency Task Force, Executive Summary Draft Final Report May 6, 2021, for Pain Management Best Practices the development of an effective pain treatment plan after proper evaluation to establish a diagnosis with measurable outcomes that focus on improvements including quality of life (QOL), improved functionality, and Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Achieving excellence in acute and chronic pain care depends on the following: An emphasis on an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-01 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy and procedures and facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement measures to deter misappropriation of resident property by failing to thoroughly investigate potential misappropriation of resident property for two of 14 residents sampled (Resident 9 and 90). Findings include: A review of a facility policy for Abuse, neglect and exploitation reviewed July 2024 revealed, It is the facility's policy to investigate all allegations, suspicions and incidents of abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, intimidation, exploitation of residents, misappropriation of resident property and injuries of unknown injury. Staff must immediately report all such allegations to the administrator/abuse coordinator. The administrator will immediately begin an investigation and notify the applicable local and state agencies in accordance with this policy. Clinical record review revealed Resident 9 was admitted to 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 · E2024-11-01 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement individualized measures for the toileting needs of three residents out of 14 sampled residents for bowel and bladder management (Residents 19, 34, and 20). Findings included: A review of a facility policy entitled Continence Management Program that was last reviewed by the facility on October 28, 2024, indicated the facility would develop a plan designed to manage incontinence according to the resident's needs and capabilities. Upon admission, the admitting Nurse will complete a head-to-toe assessment which includes interview of the resident and review of underlying conditions that may affect the resident's ability to participate in a continence management program. A Continence Evaluation will be conducted to determine if a 72-hour bowel and bladder tracking program is indicated. If tracking is indicated, the licensed nurse will instruct the nursing assistants to fill…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-01 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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, select facility policy review and staff interview, it was determined the failed to reassess a resident's pain and repeated daily use of opioid pain medications prescribed on an as needed basis to ensure effective individualized pain management plans were developed and implemented for one of 14 residents sampled (Resident 9). Findings include: A review of a facility policy for Pain Management reviewed August 1, 2024 revealed that a pain evaluation will occur on admission/readmission to the facility, at each quarterly review, with a significant change in condition and with any onset of new pain. The evaluation will contain: - A history of pain-Presence of indicators of pain or active pain including type, intensity, characteristics, frequency -Pharmacologic and non pharmacologic interventions used in the past to address pain and the efficacy of such interventions. -The impact of pain on daily functioning, including mood, sleep and appitite -Associated symptoms -The resident's goals…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 13 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete clinical records, according to professional standards of practice for two residents out of 14 sampled (Resident 34 and 19). Findings included: According to the American Nurses Association Principles for Nursing Documentation, nurses document their work and outcomes and provide an integrated, real-time method of informing the health care team about the patient status. Timely documentation of the following types of information should be made and maintained in a patient record to support the ability of the health care team to ensure informed decisions and high-quality care in the continuity of patient care: Assessments, Clinical problems, Communications with other health care professionals regarding the patient, Communication with and education of the patient, family, and the patient's designated support person and other third parties. According to the Title 49, Professional and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-01 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
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 a review of clinical records and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized discharge plan for one of 14 residents reviewed (Resident 33) to reflect the resident's discharge goals. Findings Include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include dementia (a term for loss of memory, language and other thinking abilities that interfere with daily life). Review of an admission Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS- a federally mandated standardized assessment process completed at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated August 21, 2024, indicated the resident had a BIMS (brief interview mental screener that aids in detecting cognitive impairment) score of 14 indicating she was cognitively intact. A review of Resident 33's social service notes, revealed a note dated September 30, 2024, indicating the resident would like to be discharged home when able. There were no further social…
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 before2024-11-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 a review of clinical records, observations and staff and resident interview it was determined the facility failed to to demonstrate the consistent implementation of measures planned to prevent pressure sore development for one resident out of 14 sampled (Residents 34). Findings include: According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, the pressure ulcer best practice bundle incorporates three critical components in preventing pressure ulcers: Comprehensive skin assessment, Standardized pressure ulcer risk assessment and care planning and implementation to address the areas of risk. The American College of Physicians (ACP) is a national organization of internists, who specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of adults. The largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States) Clinical Practice Guidelines indicate that the treatment of pressure ulcers should involve multiple tactics aimed at alleviating…
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 · D2024-11-01 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
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 a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to address a resident's dementia-related behavioral symptoms for two out of 12 residents (Resident 34 and 33). Findings include: A review of Resident 34's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, Alzheimer's disease (is a general term describing problems with reasoning, planning, judgment, memory and other thought processes caused by brain damage from impaired blood flow to the brain), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), aphagia (inability to speak), and protein-calorie malnutrition. A review of the resident's current care plan, initially dated October 23, 2024, in effect at the time of the survey ending November 1, 2024, revealed no documented evidence the facility had developed an individualized person-centered plan for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-01 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of controlled drug records and select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement pharmacy procedures for reconciling controlled drugs and records accounting for their administration for two of 14 residents sampled (Resident 9 and 90). Finding include: Clinical record review revealed Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include cerebral infarction (stroke), and pain in the right shoulder. An admission MDS (Minimum Data Set - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 9 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13 ( a quick snapshot of how well you are functioning cognitively at the moment, a score of 13-15 indicates cognitively intact), independent for activities of daily living and received opioid pain medication. The resident had a current physician order dated February 2, 2024, for Oxycodone 5 mg (a narcotic opioid pain…
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 · D2024-11-01 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the presence of documented evidence of clinical necessity for administration of an antibiotic drug for one resident out of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 9). Findings included: A review of Resident 9's clinical record revealed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included osteoarthritis (a type of degenerative joint disease that results from breakdown of joint cartilage and underlying bone), muscle weakness, and recent infection of Clostridioides difficile ( a highly contagious bacterium that causes diarrhea and colitis that often infects people who have recently taken antibiotics). A review of a nurse's note completed by Employee 1, a Registered Nurse (RN), dated August 10, 2024, at 2:03 PM, indicated the facility received Resident 9's initial UA (urinalysis). The primary care provider was made aware and Cefdinir (an antibiotic used to treat many different types of…
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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident was free from sexual abuse out of 7 residents (Resident 1). Findings include: A review of facility policy titled Pennsylvania Resident Abuse last reviewed by the facility August 2023, revealed that the facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation of residents, and misappropriation of resident property by anyone. A review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses, which included dementia (a chronic or persistent disorder of the mental processes caused by brain disease or injury and marked by memory disorders, personality changes, and impaired reasoning. A review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated October 18,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-20 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — patternAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate the inclusion of the resident and/or their interested representative in the development of the plan of care as evidenced by the facility's failure to invite a resident and/or their representative to attend care plan meetings for three of 10 sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, and 6). Findings include: A review of facility policy entitled Comprehensive Care Planning Policy, last revised July 19, 2019, indicated that an interdisciplinary plan of care will be established for every resident and updated in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements and on an as needed basis. In states where pre-admission screening applies, this will be coordinated with the facility assessment. The interdisciplinary Care Plan team may consist of the resident, the resident's family and/ or the resident's legal guardian. A review of MDS/ Care Plan schedule for the month of July 2023, revealed that Resident 6 was scheduled for a care plan meeting on…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain systematically organized, readily accessible and secured resident medical records and failed to safeguard medical record information against loss, destruction, or unauthorized use. Findings included: Observations on September 20, 2023, at approximately 10:00 AM of a garage, on the facility grounds, adjacent to the building, that is utilized for storage of resident equipment, maintenance supplies, and maintenance tools revealed that multiple boxes of resident medical records were stored in this garage. The records were not secured and being stored in a location to prevent unauthorized access to confidential medical records and to prevent destruction and loss of the health records. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on September 20, 2023, at approximately 2:00 PM confirmed that the facility failed to secure resident medical records and private health information to prevent loss, unauthorized access and destruction. 28 Pa. Code 201.18 (e)(1)(2.1) Management
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-20 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II determination and the PASRR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care for one of 10 residents reviewed (Resident 5) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy. A review of Resident 5's clinical revealed that on August 10, 2023, a Pennsylvania Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) identified that the resident had a positive screen for serious mental illness, intellectual disability/developmental disability, and/or other related condition; he/she requires a further PASRR Level II evaluation. You must notify the individual that a further evaluation needs to be done. Have the individual or his/her legal representative sign that they have been notified of 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 · D2023-09-20 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident was screened for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability (ID) prior to admission and that individuals identified with MD or ID are evaluated and receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by failing to conduct Pennsylvania Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level I identification form (PASRR Level I) for two of 10 residents reviewed (Residents 9 and 10). Findings included: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses, which included Bipolar disorder. A review of Resident 9's clinical record revealed that as of survey ending on September 20, 2023, a PASRR screening had not been completed. Clinical record review revealed that resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease. A review of Resident 10's clinical record 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.
- No harm found · B2024-11-01 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records and facility-initiated transfer notices and a staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide written notices of facility-initiated hospital transfers to the resident and their representative and failed to provide a copy of the notices to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for two residents out of the 14 sampled (Residents 9 and 23). Findings include: Regulatory requirements indicate that before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. A review of Resident 9's clinical record revealed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included osteoarthritis (a type of degenerative joint disease that results from breakdown of joint cartilage and underlying bone) and muscle weakness. A review of 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.
- No harm found · B2024-11-01 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 a review of clinical records and select facility policy, staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide written notice of the facility's bed hold policy to a resident and the resident's representative upon the resident's transfer to the hospital for two residents out of 14 sampled (Residents 9 and 23). Findings included: A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 9 required transfer to the hospital on July 20, 2024, and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further clinical record review revealed no documentation that Resident 9 or Resident 9's responsible party (RP) were made aware of a facility's bed-hold and reserve bed payment policy upon transfer to the hospital. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 23 was transferred to the hospital on September 21, 2024, and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further clinical record review revealed no documentation that Resident 23 or Resident 23's RP were made aware of a facility'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.
“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
$12,570 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,570 — penalty dated 2023-12-21
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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WWBV HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/30/2019 |
| SCRANTON HEALTH REAL ESTATE GROUP LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 02/26/2021 |
| DODGE, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2007 |
| ROTELL, SARAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/10/2023 |
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| SAKALAS, LORI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/06/2024 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2021 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2007 |
| RKL LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/26/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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 75% 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 $977K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 396095. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-18, 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.