Lutheran Home At Topton, The
One South Home Avenue, Topton, PA 19562 · Non profit - Church related · 194 certified beds · (610) 682-1400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 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 | 11.3% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 10.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.5% | 17.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.0% | 20.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.4% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.4% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.2% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 44.3% | 68.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 12.8% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.4% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.15 | 1.62 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.82 | 1.18 | 1.80 | typical |
§ 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.
49.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 218 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.6% 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 63 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 49.2%CMS range 43.1–54.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.5%CMS range 6.2–10.8 | 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 | 55.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 58.7% | 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 | 50.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.4% | 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 | 5.9%CMS range 3.8–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.69 | 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 194 beds and averages 88.9 residents a day — about 46% occupied, or roughly 105 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.08 to 0.80 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physicians' orders were implemented for two of 21 sampled residents. (Residents 8, 10)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 8 had diagnoses that included congestive heart failure and hypertension (high blood pressure). On November 21, 2024, a physician ordered that staff weigh the resident daily because of her congestive heart failure. There was no documented evidence that staff weighed the resident on August 12 and 20, and September 2, 4, 12, 14, and 16, 2025. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 10 had diagnoses that included heart failure and atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm). On May 22, 2025, the physician ordered that staff administer a blood pressure medicine (metoprolol succinate) once a day. Staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's heart rate was less than 55 beats per minute. Review of the Medication Administration Record for August and September 2025, revealed that staff administered the medication when…
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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of employee personnel files and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for baseline tuberculosis (TB) screening and testing for three of five newly hired employees. (Employee 2, 3, and 5)Findings include: According to the CDC's recommendations entitled, Baseline Tuberculosis Screening and Testing for Health Care Personnel, last updated December 19, 2023, all United States health care personnel should be screened for TB upon hire. This process includes a risk assessment, symptom evaluation, and TB blood test or TB skin test. If the tuberculin skin test is used to test health care personnel upon hire, the two-step testing should be used. A review of Employee 2's personnel file revealed a facility used a tuberculin skin test to screen for tuberculosis on August 18, 2025, and the result was read on August 22, 2025. There was no documented evidence that a second PPD test (step 2) was done. A review of Employee 3's personnel file revealed a facility used a tuberculin skin…
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 before2025-06-27 · 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 documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement safety interventions for one of three sampled residents at risk for falls. (Resident 5) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 had diagnoses that included neurocognitive disorder with Lewy body dementia (a progressive brain disorder that can cause cognitive decline, motor problems, sleep disturbances, and visual hallucinations) and seizures. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident was cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for care. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident was at risk for falls, exhibited resistance to care, and required the assistance of two staff members for care. On June 6, 2025, a nurse noted that the resident was being changed by a single nurse aide (NA) and that the resident jerked her legs while on her side, causing her to roll out of bed. Review of the facility…
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 before2024-10-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 29 sampled residents. (Resident 99) Findings include: Review of the policy entitled, Administering Medication, last reviewed January 25, 2024, revealed staff were to obtain vital signs if necessary and document physician indicated medication administration information. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 99 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure) and cardiomyopathy (the heart muscle is no longer able to pump blood efficiently). On June 8, 2024, the physician ordered staff to administer a blood pressure medicine (losartan potassium) once a day. Staff were not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was less than 100 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). Review of Resident 99's September and October 2024 Medication Administration Records revealed that staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the resident's status for one of 36 sampled residents. (Resident 157) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 157's MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section C (Brief Interview for Mental Status) was incomplete and Section H (Appliances) inaccurately indicated that the resident had an indwelling catheter. There was no documented evidence or physician's order to reflect that the resident had an indwelling catheter. In an interview on November 15, 2023, at 9:45 a.m., the Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator (RNAC) confirmed that the MDS sections were not completed accurately during the assessment period to reflect the resident's current status.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-15 · 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 incident reports and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervison and interventions in order to prevent falls for one of six sampled residents who were at risk for falls. (Resident 131) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 131 had diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety, insomnia and a lack of coordination. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had memory impairment and experienced behaviors that occurred daily including pacing and rummaging. The assessment also indicated that the resident required supervision to walk in the corridor and on the unit and required limited assistance for transfers and that the resident had experienced two or more falls during the assessment period. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident was at risk for falling related to frequent falls, cognitive loss, a desire to ambulate frequently, wandering, a recent history of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-15 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the pharmacist's recommendations were acknowledged by the physician for one of 36 sampled residents. (Resident 20) Findings include: Clinical record review for Resident 20 revealed multiple recommendations from the consultant pharmacist on July 27, August 18, and September 28, 2023. These included recommendations regarding seizure medications and bowel stimulants. There was no documented evidence that Resident 20's physician acknowledged or acted upon the pharmacist's recommendations. In an interview on November 14, 2023, at 3 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that the physician acknowledged Resident 20's recommendations from the pharmacist. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document the rationale for the continued use of as needed (PRN) anti-anxiety medications for three of five sampled residents. (Residents 128, 134, 168) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 128 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, psychosis, anxiety and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had memory impairment and had taken an anti-anxiety medication three days of the assessment period. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had increased behaviors. There was an intervention for the primary care physician to monitor drug use. On September 8, 2023, a physician ordered for staff to administer an anti-anxiety medication (Ativan) every four hours PRN for anxiety and/or behaviors. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR's) for September, October, and November 2023, 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 · D2023-11-15 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adaptive equipment was provided to one of three sampled residents who utilized adaptive equipment for meals. (Resident 131) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 131 had diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety and a lack of coordination. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had memory impairment and required extensive assistance from staff for eating. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a nutrition problem related to dementia and significance weight loss. There was an intervention for staff to provide adaptive equipment including Kennedy cups (spill proof drinking cups that included a lid and a straw), for all drinks. Review of an occupational therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE], revealed that upon discharge from therapy services, the resident was able to consistently drink by herself after staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders to obtain therapy services for one of three sampled residents who were referred to therapy. (Resident 1) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included depression, pain, dementia, osteoarthritis, lack of coordination, and difficulty walking. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident required extensive assistance from staff for activities of daily living. On April 14, 2023, staff documented that the resident had decreased strength and endurance and that the resident's family had requested physical therapy for ambulation. A physician's order dated April 14, 2023, referred the resident for therapy services per the resident's family's request. There was no evidence that the resident was evaluated for therapy services, per the physician's order. In an interview on August 21, 2023, at 1:41 p.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-21 · 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
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment for pressure ulcers for one of three sampled residents with pressure ulcers. (Resident 3) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included anemia and weakness. Review of a wound evaluation dated August 15, 2023, revealed that Resident 3 had a stage three pressure ulcer to the left upper back. The treatment plan recommendation was for staff to apply hydrogel and gauze island once daily for 30 days. There was no evidence that staff entered the recommended treatment into the resident's clinical record or provided treatment to the pressure ulcer until August 21, 2023, six days after the evaluation. In an interview on August 21, 2023, at 3:42 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed staff should have entered the treatment into the resident's clinical record and there was no evidence that any wound treatment was provided to the resident's pressure ulcer prior to August 21, 2023. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing…
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 · B2023-11-15 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer and the reasons for transfer in writing for 12 of 14 sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 8, 20, 22, 49, 55, 70, 115, 117, 125, 128, 134, 171) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Discharge and Transfer, last reviewed January 25, 2023, revealed that the facility must notify the resident and resident representative in writing prior to a transfer or discharge in a language and manner they understand. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 8 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], and October 10, 2023, after changes in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident and the resident's representative were provided with written information regarding the resident's transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 20…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIAKON | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2000 |
| BEUMER, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/27/2022 |
| CHRISTELL, ROY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| MEADOWS, MEGAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/24/2022 |
| MUELLER, HARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/24/2022 |
| SCHROEDER-SAULNIER, DEBORAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| SOMBART, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| SOMMER, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| ANDERSON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2019 |
| BROWN, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/25/2018 |
| SNEED, CHADWICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| TICE, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| COOPER, VALERIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/17/2009 |
| LEGAR, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 $3.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 395117. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.