Village At Penn State, The
160 Lion's Hill Road, State College, PA 16803 · Non profit - Corporation · 36 certified beds · (814) 238-1949 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2024
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll-based staffing 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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 4 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 | 36.1% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.9% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 10.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 9.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 30.3% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.8% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.3% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.2% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.0% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.4% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 52.9% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. 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.
23.1% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.60 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 23.1%CMS range 13.0–37.9 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 7.0–14.8 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.75 | 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 36 beds and averages 31.9 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 4 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 5.23 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.90 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.27 on weekdays — 3% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.99 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-14 · 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 clinical record review, review of facility policies and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions for fall prevention which resulted in actual harm of pelvic fracture for one of three residents reviewed for falls (Resident 4). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Falls Risk Assessment System Guidelines, last reviewed without changes January 31, 2026, revealed all residents will be assessed for initial risk for falls using The Fall Risk Assessment. Residents that score a 15 or greater will be considered at risk for falls. A plan of care will be initiated to address the fall risk factors. This assessment will begin on admission and be completed within 24 hours. If a resident triggers a risk for falls, the resident will have further assessment for risk for falls utilizing the Care Area Assessment (CAA) guidelines and the plan of care will be enhanced if indicated, to further minimize the risk of falls. The policy indicated 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 · Ecited before2026-05-14 · 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 and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and maintain food service equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's main kitchen.Findings include: An observation in the facility's Atrium kitchen and supply room, and the main kitchen on May 12, 2026, at 9:20 AM revealed the following: The Atrium gas burners were observed with black, charred particulate matter that was cooked on to the metal grates. The metal control knobs on the Atrium stove were observed to have a large amount of dust, debris, and grease built up between the knobs. The Atrium oven was observed with black and charred debris throughout the base of the oven and on the oven door. The supply room ice machine was observed to have plastic lids, a small square bucket, a cup, and boxes of gloves behind ice machine on the floor. The supply room refrigerator contained a container of milk was bulging and leaking. And was noted to be frozen. The main kitchen walk-in freezer had an uncovered sheet cake sitting on a shelf. 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 · D2026-05-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that active physician orders incorporated resident wishes related to end-of-life care for one of four residents reviewed for advanced directives concerns (Resident 3). Findings include: Clinical record review revealed the facility admitted Resident 3 on March 30, 2026. Review of Resident 3's active physician order dated March 20, 2026, revealed staff are to implement full treatment in the event of a medical emergency (Full Code, chest compressions and breathing assistance). A POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment, portable medical order form that records treatment wishes so that emergency personnel know what treatments the resident wants in the event of a medical emergency) form signed by Resident 3 on March 23, 2026, revealed Resident 3 wanted staff to implement DNR (Do Not Resuscitate, do not provide chest compressions or assist with breathing) directives in the event of a medical emergency. The above findings for Resident 3 were reviewed during a meeting with…
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 · D2026-05-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan regarding a cardiac pacemaker for two of 11 residents reviewed (Residents 28 and 33).Findings Include: Clinical record review for Resident 28 revealed a diagnosis list that included the presence of a cardiac pacemaker (an electronic device to help regulate the beating of the heart), sick sinus syndrome (a malfunctioning of the heart that impacts the heart's natural pacemaker node), and atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rhythm). Medical provider documentation for Resident 28 dated April 8, 2026, at 10:29 AM also revealed a diagnosis list that included the presence of a cardiac pacemaker. A quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS, an assessment completed at specific intervals to determine care needs) for Resident 28 dated March 18, 2026, revealed an active diagnosis of the presence of a cardiac pacemaker. Review of Resident 28's care plan revealed no current comprehensive, person-centered care plan that addressed…
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 · D2026-05-14 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — isolatedEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on a review of employee personnel and education records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each nurse aide received 12 hours of in-service training annually for one of three nurse aides reviewed (Employee 1). Findings include: Review of Employee 1's (nurse aide) personnel record revealed that the facility hired her on April 17, 2023. Review of training records provided by the facility for Employee 1 dated April 2025, to April 2026, revealed that Employee 1 completed six hours and 25 minutes of in-service education. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on May 14, 2026, at 12:04 PM confirmed the above findings for Employee 1. 28 Pa. Code 201.19(7) Personnel policies and procedures 28 Pa. Code 201.20(a)(6)(d) Staff development
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-06-06 · 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 observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store food and maintain food service equipment in a safe and sanitary manner in the facility's main kitchen, Atrium kitchen, and pantry.Findings include:Observation of the Atrium kitchen on June 3, 2025, at 9:30 AM revealed the following:Multiple sheet pans were observed stored and in use in the cooking area contained significant black buildup on the pans.A large plastic wrap holder on the production table was observed with dried liquid splatter, food crumbs, and dust on the exterior and interior of the holder.The flooring under the dish machine, cooler, and food cooking equipment contained dirt/debris buildup on the flooring and wall edges.A three-tier black cart located across from the dish machine with clean glasses and trays stored on it had dried spills, dried food, and debris on the shelves of the cart.An observation of the main kitchen on June 3, 2025, at 9:50 AM, which is utilized to store food and prepare some food items for the Atrium kitchen revealed the following:A significant buildup 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 · E2025-06-06 · 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
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided that was consistent with professional standards of practice for two of two residents reviewed (Residents 4 and 18).Findings include:Clinical record review for Resident 4 revealed current physician orders for Oxycodone HCI 5 milligrams (mg)Clinical record review for Resident 4 revealed current physician orders for Acetaminophen (a medication used to control mild pain) extra strength 500 mg by mouth every four hours as needed for pain, (no pain level identified), Oxycodone HCI (a narcotic pain medication used to control moderate to severe pain) oral tablets 5 mg every six hours as needed for moderate to severe pain, and Oxycodone HCI oral tablets 5 mg give 2.5 mg every four hours as needed for pain (no pain level identified).Review of Resident 4's most recent quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment completed by the facility, at intervals to determine the care needs of the resident) dated May 20, 2025, revealed that she had occasional 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 · D2025-06-06 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility determined a resident's ability to self-administer medications for one of one resident reviewed (Resident 14). Findings include: Observation of Resident 14 on June 4, 2025, at 12:35 PM revealed she was sitting in her chair beside her bed with her bedside table in front of her. On the bedside table she had Flonase nasal spray (a steroid medication used to treat various signs and symptoms that could be caused by allergies) and Afrin nasal spray (a medication used to treat nasal congestion and stuffiness). She indicated that she brought them to the facility from the hospital. She said that both medications have been on her windowsill or overbed table since she came to the facility on May 21, 2025. She also indicated that she does self-administer the medications. Clinical record review for Resident 14 revealed no physician's order that the resident may self-administer the medication, or that the facility determined the resident was able…
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 before2025-06-06 · 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
Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions related to fall injury prevention for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 31) and failed to provide adequate supervision resulting in a fall for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 23).Findings include:Clinical record review for Resident 31 revealed a diagnosis list that included a history of falling.Resident 31's quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS, an assessment completed at specific intervals to determine care needs) dated April 9, 2025, revealed that staff assessed the resident as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 5, which indicated severe cognitive impairment.Review of Resident 31's care plan revealed that the resident is at risk for falls due to unsteady gait and poor balance. An intervention dated December 17, 2024, instructed staff to have dycem (a material used to prevent slipping or sliding) on the seat of the resident's wheelchair and the top of the pressure alarm to prevent sliding.Clinical…
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 before2024-07-19 · 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 and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food items and maintain a safe and sanitary environment in the main kitchen and smaller kitchen area located on the skilled nursing unit. Findings included: Initial tour of the facility's main kitchen on July 16, 2024, between 11:10 AM and 11:40 AM with Employee 1, Director of Dining, revealed the following: Observation of the walk-in freezer off the hallway revealed: A package of veggie burgers was undated, and the package was open exposing them to the ambient air. Several packages of what Employee 1 identified as ground pork sausage were undated. An undated bag of breadsticks was open to the ambient air. Observation of the walk-in cooler off the hallway revealed: A package of onions had an expired use-by date of 7/9. Four bags of celery had no dates on them. A container labeled plain halibut had an expired use-by date of 7/14. There were eight foil wrapped items in a tray that Employee 1 identified as potatoes with no labels or dates on them. There were multiple packaged avocado halves in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-19 · 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
Based on clinical record review, review of facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent abuse for one of one resident reviewed (Resident 8). Findings include: Clinical record review for Resident 8 revealed that on May 9, 2024, at 10:30 PM a nurse aide noted her to be sitting on the floor on the left side of her bed. The resident indicated that she slid out of bed. Concurrently, Employee 2, Registered Nurse, was made aware that Resident 8 fell out of bed, and the need to assess her for injuries. Review of the facility investigation into the fall revealed that Resident 8 did not have any injuries from the fall but there were concerns documented by Employee 3, nurse aide and Employee 4, Licensed Practical Nurse, that indicated they reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) that when Employee 2 came to assess Resident 8, she was verbally inappropriate to her. The investigation also confirmed that Resident 8 was interviewed and that the nurse was rude and unprofessional. Review of a witness statement from Employee 4, dated May 9, 2024,…
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 · D2024-07-19 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor for the effectiveness or adverse consequences of psychotropic medication use for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 8). Findings include: Clinical record review for Resident 8 revealed a current physician's order for Zoloft (a medication used to treat depression) 25 milligrams (mg) one time a day. Review of Resident 8's current care plan revealed a care plan focus area for depression related to dementia. The goal was for Resident 8 to remain free of signs and symptoms of depression, anxiety, or sad mood. The interventions indicated to monitor for side effects and effectiveness of the medication. Further clinical record review revealed no documented evidence that Resident 8 was being monitored for side effects or effectiveness of the medication. Interview with the Director of Nursing and Nursing Home Administrator on July 18, 2024, at 12:15 PM confirmed the above noted findings that there was no documented evidence that they were monitoring Resident 8 for side effects or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2026-05-14 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer that included all the necessary contents to residents' responsible parties at the time of transfer for two of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations (Residents 2, and 4); and failed to provide timely written notice of the facility bed-hold policy to residents' responsible parties at the time of transfer that included all the necessary contents for one of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations (Resident 2).Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that resident 2 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the facility form related to bed hold information and notification of transfers did not include the following information: Notification of the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing. A statement of the resident's appeal rights including the name, address (mailing 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIBERTY LUTHERAN SERVICES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 06/15/2012 |
| FIRST CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/07/2025 |
| BORTZ, BEVERLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2014 |
| DUCATO, FRANK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| HILL, NIKKI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| HOPKE, FRED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| KRAMER, TAMIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LYNN, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2016 |
| PRINCE, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SILVIS, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2016 |
| SLIWINSKI, MARTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2015 |
| WILLIAMS, SARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/30/2016 |
| BARNUM, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/10/2006 |
| FISHER, LUANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/1977 |
| MYERS, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/09/1987 |
| MERCER BUCKS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| COMSTOCK, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/24/2020 |
| CORBIN, ELLEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/11/2013 |
| GALANTE, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/13/2007 |
| ADVANTAGE CARE REHABILITATION, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/17/2019 |
| BAKER TILLY ADVISORY GROUP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| INTELYCARE INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/21/2022 |
| KREISHER MILLER | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| MORGAN STANLEY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| RKL LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| THOMAS, PETER | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/21/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in PA
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 396092. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-14, 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.