Uniontown Nursing And Rehab
129 Franklin Avenue, Uniontown, PA 15401 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (724) 439-5700 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (25% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 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 | 7.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.7% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.6% | 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 | 5.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.0% | 17.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.9% | 20.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.6% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.4% | 25.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.1% | 17.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.6% | 68.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.0% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.6% | 9.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.69 | 1.62 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.62 | 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.
60.9% 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 87 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 25.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 58 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 60.9%CMS range 47.4–72.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–14.4 | 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 | 25.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 20.7% | 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 | 29.3% | 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 | 3.1% | 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 3.2–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.77 | 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 120 beds and averages 100.0 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 20 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 3.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.08 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 25% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-07-24 · tag F0940 — failed to train staff — widespreadDevelop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility assessment, personnel file review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective training program for individuals providing services under contractual arrangement, consistent with their expected roles. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment reviewed 10/29/24, indicated, General orientation is coordinated by the Human Resources Director, utilizing the new employee handbook. All employees are required to complete general orientation. All employees are required to complete annual trainings as identified below.-Protecting Resident Rights in Nursing Facilities-Preventing, Recognizing and Reporting Abuse-Code of Conduct, General Compliance Training, Ethics in Long Term Care, HIPPA-Infection Prevention and Control-Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders, Dementia Care: Hand in Hand Modules-Overview Behavioral Health-Emergency Preparedness and Fire Safety-Preventing Slips, Trips and Falls-Patient Centered Communication, Effective Communication in the Workplace-QAPI - Mission , Vision,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-07-24 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — widespreadEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on review of facility policy, staff education records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct at least 12 hours of in-service education, within 12 months of their hire date anniversary, for nurse aides as required for five of five nurse aides (Employees Employee E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, In-Service Training, All Staff recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated all personnel will receive education and training related to resident care. Review of facility provided documents and training records revealed the following staff members did not have 12 hours of in-service education: NA Employee E1 had a hire date of 5/21/1990, with approximately three hours of in-service education between 5/21/24, and 5/21/25.NA Employee E2 had a hire date of 5/21/1990, with approximately four hours of in-service education between 5/21/24, and 5/21/25.NA Employee E3 had a hire date of 9/2/21, with approximately four hours of in-service education between 9/2/24, 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 · E2025-07-24 · tag F0945 — failed to train staff on abuse prevention — patternInclude as part of its infection prevention and control program, mandatory training that includes written standards, policies, and procedures for the program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Infection Control for seven of ten staff members (Employee E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, E9, and E10).Findings include:Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention.i. Safety and emergency…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0941 — isolatedDevelop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program that includes effective communications for direct care staff members.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Effective Communication for five of ten staff members (Employee E4, E6, E7, E9 and E10).Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention.i. Safety and emergency…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0942 — isolatedEnsure that staff members are educated on resident rights and facility responsibilities to properly care for its residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility assessment, facility documents, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on resident rights for five of ten staff members (Employee E1, E3, E6, E7 and E9). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention.i. Safety 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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Abuse and Neglect Prevention for two of ten staff members (Employee E6 and E9). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention.i. Safety and emergency procedures. Review 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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0944 — isolatedConduct mandatory training, for all staff, on the facility’s Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility assessment, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) for nine of ten staff members (Employee E1, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9 and E10).Findings include:Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0946 — isolatedProvide training in compliance and ethics.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Compliance and Ethics for seven of ten staff members (Employee E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E9 and E10).Findings include:Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention.i. Safety and emergency…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0949 — failed to train staff on dementia and abuse — isolatedProvide behavior health training consistent with the requirements and as determined by a facility assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Behavioral Health for five of ten staff members (Employee E4, E6, E7, E9 and E10).Findings include:Review of the facility policy, Training Requirements most recently reviewed 10/29/24, indicated the facility will develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff. Training content includes, at a minimum:a. Effective communication for direct care staff.b. Resident rights and facility responsibility for caring of residents.c. Elements and goals of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program.d. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's infection prevention and control program.e. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the facility's compliance and ethics program.f. Behavioral health.g. Dementia management and care of the cognitively impaired.h. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention.i. Safety and emergency procedures. Review 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 · F2024-08-07 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly restrain hair to prevent the potential for cross contamination in the Kitchen. Findings include: Review of facility policy Preventing Foodborne Illness - Employee Hygiene and Sanitary Practices last reviewed 9/13/23, indicated hair nets or caps and/or beard restraints must be worn to keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, and linens. During an observation on 8/4/24, at 9:37 a.m. Dietary Aide Employee E1, was observed in the kitchen without a hair restraint. During an interview on 8/4/24, at 1:35 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed the kitchen staff should wear hair restraints. 28 Pa. Code: 211.6(c)(d)(f) Dietary services.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision that resulted in an elopement for one of 4 residents (Resident R76). Findings include: Review of facility policy Wandering and Elopements last reviewed September 13, 2023, indicated the facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain resident's safety. A complete elopement risk assessment will be completed on admission, readmission, quarterly, and with significant change. If identified as an elopement risk, the facility will utilize a Wanderguard (a monitoring device worn on the wrist or ankle that alerts staff when the resident leaves a safe area).…
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.
- 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to VALLEY WEST HEALTH — 12 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WESTERN PA OPCO HOLDINGS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 10/29/2024 |
| ANDREWS, HEATHER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 09/03/2021 |
| FINN, NICHOLAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 09/03/2021 |
| LINAM, KIM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 09/27/2023 |
| RASMUSSEN-JONES, HOLLY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 09/26/2016 |
| VALLEY WEST HEALTH LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/15/2024 |
| FLORES, MAY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| FRANCO, AHARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| MATTHEWS, DEBORAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| NULL, JACI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| RAMI, ISAAC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| KARITY, SARAH | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| BEVERLY ENTERPRISES - PENNSYLVANIA, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| BEVERLY ENTERPRISES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITIATION SERVICES, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| DRUMM INTERMEDIARY SUB CO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| DRUMM MERGER CO | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/18/2017 |
| DRUMM MERGER CO SUB LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| FILLMORE STRATEGIC INVESTORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/27/2016 |
| GEARY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| GPH UNIONTOWN LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/12/2005 |
| PEARL SENIOR CARE, LLC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/20/2018 |
| SURETY COMPLIANCE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| WASHINGTON STATE INVESTMENT BOARD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2024 |
| MILLER, JEAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/15/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 33 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
14 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 395674. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-11, 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.