Whitestone Care Center
370 White Stone Corner Road, Stroudsburg, PA 18360 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 90 certified beds · (570) 476-1600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2025
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (24) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $23,257 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-18)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 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 | 28.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.9% | 10.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 35.2% | 17.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.7% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.8% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.5% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 63.7% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.5% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.9% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.28 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.54 | 1.18 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 262 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.0% 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 129 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 69% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 59.0%CMS range 53.3–64.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 8.9–14.6 | 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 | 55.0% | 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 | 56.6% | 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 | 50.4% | 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 | 99.4% | 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 | 96.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.5% | 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 | 4.6%CMS range 2.7–6.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 90 beds and averages 75.1 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.69 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.82 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.59 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
24 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-11-18 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — patternProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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, facility investigative reports select facility policies, and American Heart Association guidelines and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide prompt cardio pulmonary resuscitation intervention consistent with a resident's advanced directives for one resident (Resident CR1) out of five residents sampled. This failure placed 33 facility residents of 86 residents residing in the facility, desiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), in immediate jeopardy to their health and safety with the potential for death because of a similar occurrence. ( Resident's CR1 ,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 33 and 34. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR is an emergency treatment that's done when someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped) last reviewed by the facility [DATE], revealed, licensed nurses, respiratory therapists and van drivers…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-29 · 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 a review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, select investigative reports and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the provision of care and services necessary to avoid physical harm and maintain the physical health of one resident out of two sampled (Resident 18) resulting in a serious injury, a fractured femur (thigh bone). This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Pennsylvania Resident Abuse: Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation last reviewed by the facility on April 24, 2025, 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 source. The policy defines neglect as the failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-06-04 · 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 a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, select investigative reports and clinical records, and interviews with staff and the resident's family it was determined that the facility neglected to provide the care and services necessary to avoid physical harm and maintain physical health for one resident out of six residents sampled (Resident 1) resulting in serious injuries, a fractured thumb and closed head injury. Findings include: The facility's policy entitled Abuse Policy dated as reviewed by the facility August 30, 2023 revealed that The facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents, and misappropriation of resident property by anyone. Facility staff must immediately report all such allegations to the administrator/abuse coordinator. The administrator/abuse coordinator will immediately begin an investigation and notify the applicable local and state agencies in accordance with the procedures in this policy. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1…
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 before2025-12-05 · 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, clinical records, 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 two of 30 residents sampled (Resident 4 and Resident 11).Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing the MDS dated [DATE], 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 revealed Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (partial weakness on one side…
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 · D2025-12-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address skin integrity needs for one out of 20 residents sampled (Resident 69).Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Depression (a common mental disorder. It involves a depressed mood or loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time.) and anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness). A review of a Psychiatry progress note dated April 30, 2025, revealed the resident had a diagnosis of excoriation (skin picking disorder). The resident was experiencing increased skin picking related to anxiety. Further it was revealed the resident was embarrassed about the condition and covered her scars and open areas on her forehead with a mask or Band-Aid. The progress note…
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 · D2025-12-05 · 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
Based on a review of select facility policy, controlled drug shift count records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate controlled medication records on one of two medication carts observed.Findings include: A review of a facility policy entitled Inventory Control of Controlled Substances last reviewed April 24, 2025, revealed the facility should ensure the incoming and outgoing nurses count all Schedule II controlled substances (medications with a high potential for abuse, but it has a currently accepted medical use in the U.S. or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions) and any medications with potential for abuse or diversion at the change of each shift. A review of the facility Shift verification of Controlled Substance Count form for the first-floor A hall Nursing Unit medication cart revealed the following:July 28, 2025, the evening shift outgoing nurse failed to sign that the narcotic count was completed and correct.August 9, 2025, the day shift outgoing nurse failed to sign that the narcotic…
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 before2025-12-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of select facility policy, observations, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that biologicals were stored within the expiration date in one of two medication storage areas.Findings include:Review of the facility policy entitled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals last reviewed [DATE], stated the facility will store medications and biologicals that have an expired date on the label and have not been retained longer than recommended by manufacturer or supplier guidelines. An observation of the medication storage room located on the second floor nursing unit on [DATE], at 11:24 AM in the presence of Employee 1 LPN (license practical nurse) revealed one sterile dressing change kit which expired on [DATE] and four sterile dressing kits which expired on [DATE].An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on [DATE], at 2:00 PM acknowledged the above findings that the biologicals were not maintained within the expiration dates. 28 Pa Code…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-03 · 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 and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 20 sampled (Resident 74). Findings included: A review of Resident 74's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and discharged from the facility on November 15, 2024. A review of Resident 74's Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed in Section A 2105 Discharge Status that Resident 74 was discharged to a short-term general hospital. A review of a discharge nurses note dated November 15, 2024, at 5:38 PM revealed the resident was discharged home on November 15, 2024, with her son. An interview with the director of nursing on January 30, 2025, at approximately 9:30 AM confirmed the resident's MDS Assessment was inaccurate. 28 Pa.…
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 · D2025-02-03 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that is not possible, for one out of 20 residents sampled (Resident 1). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (a condition characterized by the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function). A review of a significant change in status Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated January 16, 2025, revealed Resident 1 was moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 8 (Brief Interview 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 · D2025-02-03 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
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, the facility failed to promptly provide laboratory results to the ordering practitioner for one out of the 20 residents sampled (Resident 1). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (a condition characterized by the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function). A review of a significant change in status Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated January 16, 2025, revealed that Resident 1 is moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 8 (Brief Interview for Mental Status- a tool within the Cognitive Section of the MDS that is used to assess the resident's attention, orientation, and ability…
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 · D2025-02-03 · tag F0776 — isolatedProvide timely, approved x-ray services, or have an agreement with an approved provider to obtain them.
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, the facility failed to ensure the timely provision and/or procurement of radiology/diagnostic services to meet the needs of one of 20 residents sampled (Resident 64). Findings include: Review of Resident 64's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses to include unspecified deep vein thrombosis (condition where a blood clot forms in a deep vein, typically in the lower legs), gout (form of inflammatory arthritis), anxiety and was cognitively intact. Review of Resident 64's clinical record revealed a progress note dated January 18, 2025, indicating the resident had a fall and subsequently complained of right shoulder pain. The physician ordered an x-ray of the right shoulder to rule out a fracture. A review of the resident's clinical record conducted during the survey on January 29, 2025, confirmed that the ordered x-ray had not been completed. On January 29, 2025, a STAT x-ray of the right shoulder was…
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 before2024-12-18 · 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 a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcer development for one resident out of two sampled. (Resident 1). 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…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-11-18 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
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 reports, and employee job descriptions and staff interview it was determined the facility's administration failed to effectively use its resources to promote resident safety by failing to implement established procedures to provide timely cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event of cardiac arrest according to a resident's advanced directive for one out of five sampled residents (Resident CR1). Findings included: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR is an emergency treatment that's done when someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped) last reviewed by the facility [DATE], revealed, licensed nurses, respiratory therapists and van drivers will hold active CPR certificates for healthcare providers by an American Heart Association (AHA) approved provider, wherein course content requires an in-person skills verification. Courses completed in on-line only format are not acceptable. CPR will be…
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 11 citations
- Potential for harm · F2024-02-23 · 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, review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that 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. 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 entitled Food and Nutrition Services: Food Production and Food Safety that was last reviewed by the facility on April 21, 2023, revealed that all…
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 · E2024-02-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living were the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene by failing to shower residents at the scheduled/planned frequency for three out of 18 residents sampled (Residents 7, 31, and 1). Findings include: A review of a facility policy entitled Resident Bath/Shower/Scheduling Policy that was last reviewed by the facility on April 21, 2023, indicated that residents will be bathed or showered according to their preferences in order to maintain healthy hygiene and skin condition. Each resident will be scheduled to receive bathing a minimum of two times per week unless they prefer less frequent baths or state regulations requires more frequent bathing. When the bath or shower is complete, the nurse assistant (NA) will document the activity on the shower sheet or Point of Care [(POC) 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 · Ecited before2024-02-23 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide 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 interviews it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate the consistent implementation of measures planned to prevent pressure sore development for one resident out of two sampled with a pressure sore (Resident 18). Findings included: A review of Resident 18's clinical record revealed that the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, spinal stenosis (is a condition where spinal column narrows and compresses the spinal cord), ambulatory dysfunction, and anxiety. Resident 18's current plan of care identified that the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to decreased mobility and weakness and that the resident would have no preventable breakdown. Planned interventions included to turn and reposition every two hours, keep clean and dry, and to monitor for skin breakdown. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS- a federally mandated…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records and select facility reports and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to timely consult with the physician regarding the potential need to alter treatment in response to a resident's increased pain following an unwitnessed fall for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 3). Findings included: Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia, muscle weakness, history of fractures, age-related osteoporosis, and abnormal gait and mobility. A review of an unwitnessed fall incident report that was completed by Employee 3, a registered nurse (RN), dated October 22, 2023, at 4:45 a.m., revealed that staff found Resident 3 sitting on her buttocks in her room on the right side of her bed. The resident reported to staff, I was trying to hang the picture back on the wall. Employee 3 assessed the resident and noted that she had some pain/discomfort to her left elbow 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 · Dcited before2024-02-23 · 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 and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 19 sampled (Resident 13). Findings include: A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to have included cardiovascular disease, renal insufficiency, and diabetes. A review of Resident 13's quarterly review MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Section P - P0100. Restraints was coded as D. Other indicating that the resident had a form of restraints in place. A review of Resident 13's clinical record failed to reveal that the resident had restraints in place as noted on the quarterly MDS assessment. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on February 22, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., revealed that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 review and revise the care plan to include the plan to meet the resident's current discharge goal for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 64). Findings include: A review of clinical record revealed that Resident 64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of anxiety and depression. Review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS- a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated January 31, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a tool to assess cognitive function). Review of Resident 64's care plan initially dated, September 17, 2023, indicated that the resident's discharge plan was to return home. Upon review at the time of the survey ending February 23, 2024, revealed no revisions were noted to that plan and goal to return home.…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 investigative reports and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement an individualized incontinence management plan to assure timely services to meet the resident's assessed needs for one resident out of two sampled (Resident 18). Findings included: A review of a facility policy entitled Continence Management Program that was last reviewed by the facility on April 21, 2023, indicated that an incontinence plan is developed according to the resident's needs and capabilities. A Continence Evaluation will be conducted to determine if a 72-hour bowel and bladder tracking is indicated and licensed nurse will instruct the nursing assistants to complete the form. When a [NAME] has been identified, a new Continence Evaluation will be completed and the licensed nurse will develop a toileting program, determining the approaches needed to achieve the goal(s) and establish the type of staff intervention needed to meet each…
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 · D2024-02-23 · 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 a review of clinical records and select facility reports and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to timely recognize that a resident was experiencing increased pain after an unwitnessed fall, assure prompt evaluation of the cause of the pain and manage the resident's pain consistent with professional standards of practice for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 3). Findings included: Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia, muscle weakness, history of fractures, age-related osteoporosis, and abnormal gait and mobility. A review of an unwitnessed fall incident report that was completed by Employee 3, a registered nurse (RN), dated October 22, 2023, at 4:45 a.m., revealed that staff found Resident 3 sitting on her buttocks in her room on the right side of her bed. The resident reported to staff, I was trying to hang the picture back on the wall. Employee 3 assessed 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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of resident clinical records, select facility policy, facility incident reports, and staff interview it was revealed that the facility failed to assure that one of 19 residents reviewed was free of significant medication errors (Resident 84). Findings include: A review of a current facility policy entitled 24 Hour Order Review, last reviewed by the facility April 2023 revealed a resident's record will be checked each night for new orders written in the past 24 hours. Further it was indicated if new orders were written, the nurse will verify the order has been transcribed correctly on the medication record. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. The resident's hospital discharge orders included a list of medications the resident was to receive after discharge and upon admission to the skilled nursing facility, which included Xarelto (anticoagulant) 15 mg two times a day for 27 doses. The next…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of select facility policies, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to label and identify use by/discard dates for multidose insulin and failed to store drugs and pharmacy supplies at appropriate temperatures for one of 19 residents sampled (Resident 50) Findings include: A review of facility policy entitled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals last reviewed April 21, 2023, revealed that medications and biologics should have an expiration date for opened medications. If a multi-dose vial of an injectable medication has been opened the vial should be dated and discarded within 28 days. The facility should ensure that medications and biologicals are stored at their appropriate temperatures according to the United States Pharmacopeia guidelines for temperature ranges. Staff should monitor the temperature of vaccines twice a day. Refrigeration 36°F to 46°F. An observation of the first-floor medication cart on February 22, 2024, at approximately 8:55 AM revealed Resident 50's Lantus multidose vial 100…
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 · D2023-08-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of test tray results and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve foods at palatable temperatures and quality as discerned by residents including one of six residents sampled (Resident 1 ). Findings include: During interview with Resident 1 on August 15, 2023, at 10 AM the resident stated that the hot food is served cold and arrives late and his hot tea is always cold. He stated that the food doesn't taste good. Observation of the lunch meal service on August 15, 2023, on the nursing unit revealed the following: The food cart was delivered to the resident unit at approximately 12:37 p.m., to the first floor B hallway. At the time the last tray was served to the resident at approximately 1:05 p.m., the temperatures of the test tray food items revealed the following unpalatable food beverage temperatures: cheeseburger - 113.9 degrees Fahrenheit (cold to taste) mashed potatoes with gravy 117.5 degrees Fahrenheit (cold to taste) orange juice - 43.8 degrees Fahrenheit (luke warm) fruit punch - 49.6 degrees Fahrenheit (luke warm)…
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
$23,257 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $15,239 — penalty dated 2024-11-18
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-06-04
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 | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2019 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| GREGO, NICOLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/13/2021 |
| SAKALAS, LORI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/06/2024 |
| BUNDLE TENANT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/31/2025 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2011 |
| RKL LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/26/2023 |
| STROUDSBURG HEALTH INVESTORS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
6 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 $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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 396130. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-05, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.