Home / Pennsylvania / Pittsburgh
700 Bower Hill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15243 · Allegheny County · (412) 341-1030
139 certified beds, about 136 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395391 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 6, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since November 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,355 in the last three years; the largest was $16,355, and the latest is dated August 10, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.92 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.29 of those hours.
42.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Boncrest Resource Group, an affiliated group of 5 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical and facility record review, facility submitted documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent resident elopement that created an immediate jeopardy situation for one of fourteen residents that were identified as at risk for elopement and did not reside on a secured unit (Resident R84). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy, Wandering and Elopements dated 3/1/26, 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. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident R84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interview, it determined the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the Main Kitchen, which created the potential for cross contamination and food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments were accurate and fully completed for seven of twelve residents (Resident R19, R21, R22, R51, R58, R93, and R118).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy and clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a restorative nursing program for four of seven residents reviewed for ADLs (activities of daily living) concerns (Residents R23, R26, R91, and R99).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, resident observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that necessary care and services were provided for four of six residents (Resident R3, R62, R124, and R128).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, employment records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain documentation that facility nursing personnel have current education and certification to provide basic life support, including CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), to a resident requiring such emergency care prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel and subject to related physician orders and the resident's advance directives for 14 of 41 licensed nurses (Registered Nurse (RN) Employees E3, E4, E5, E6, and E7 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employees E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, E13, E14, E15, and E16). Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor weight and nutrition status by failing to obtain a monthly weight for one of six residents (Resident R6) and failed to identify and reassess residents for need for nutritional interventions for weight loss and/or skin issues for two of six residents. (Resident R97 and R9).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services to maintain a resident's dignity for one of 11 sampled residents. (Resident R23)
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of facility policy and facility documents, observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain grievance forms can be filed anonymously in one of four locations where grievance information is available. (Willow Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of job descriptions, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) failed effectively manage the facility to protect residents from elopement. This failure resulted in a resident, who was a known elopement risk, exiting the resident's assigned nursing unit unsupervised (Resident R1). This failure created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of fourteen residents who were documented as elopement risks (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medical records on each resident are complete and accurately documented for one of eight residents (Resident R84).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or their representative received written notice of the facility bed-hold policy at the time of transfer for four of eight residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident R9, R58, R62, and R98). Findings Include: Review of federal regulation S483.15(d) Notice of Bed-Hold Policy, indicated, facilities must provide written information about these policies to residents prior to and upon transfer for such absences. This information must be provided to all facility residents, regardless of their payment source. These provisions require facilities to issue two notices related to bed-hold policies. The first notice could be given well in advance of any transfer, i.e., information provided in the admission packet. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make sure that medications were properly stored and/or disposed of in one of four medication rooms (Hickory Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations and staff interview, it determined the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions to prevent the potential for cross contamination during lunch time tray line.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, observations, clinical record review, review of facility document and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment free from potential accident hazards due to uncovered electrical plugs, accessible potential hazardous materials, foods and sharps that had potential to cause injury and actual removal of a elopement bracelet for one resident (Resident R225) on one of four nursing units( Memory Care Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of neglect to the State Agency for one of four residents (Resident R325).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility clinical records, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that resident assessments were accurate for one of five residents (Resident R71).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop care plans that included instructions to provide person centered care for one of three residents (Resident R57).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess, document, and notify physicians of increased and decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels for three of nine residents reviewed (Residents R58, R64, and R111).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that appropriate treatments and services were provided for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter as required for two of four residents (Resident R51 and R331).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the pharmacy completed a Medication Regime Review (MRR) at least monthly for one of five residents (Resident R58).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documents and interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to provide the State Agency with access to facility information, causing a delay in the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document each resident was offered an influenza and/or pneumococcal immunization and the resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of immunizations, for one of five residents reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations (Resident R53).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain medical records on each resident are complete and accurately documented for one of ten residents. (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, facility infection control documentation, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain and implement a comprehensive program to monitor and prevent infections in the facility for 11 of 11 months. (September 2023 through July 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's antibiotic stewardship policy, infection control documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program to include a system to monitor antibiotic use and conduct ongoing review of the treatment of infections (September 2023 through July 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that showers were consistently provided for four of eight residents (Resident R7, R91, R110 and R111).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify physicians of increased and decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels and failed to assess residents for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) and failed to follow physician orders for 3 of 6 residents receiving insulin (Residents R93, R7, and R58).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards on the secured Dementia nursing unit (Willow).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain significant medications are administered as ordered by the physician for one of three residents (Resident R155).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly secure one of four medications carts reviewed (Hickory Nursing Units back hall medication cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident grievances for prior 60 days and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to effectively resolve and provide responses to residents and/or their responsible parties in a timely manner in relation to concerns documented via Grievance procedure and complete the reports in their entirety for four of nine grievances.
19 fire safety citations on file: 7 on August 6, 2026, 6 on June 26, 2025, 6 on July 17, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 10, 2026 | Fine | $16,355 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.92 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.29 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.51 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.49 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.8% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 31.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.96 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.09 on weekdays and 3.51 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.15 in April to June 2025 to 3.92 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.92 | 1.29 | 4.09 | 3.51 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 136 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.02 | 1.27 | 4.14 | 3.70 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 134 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.07 | 1.29 | 4.25 | 3.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 135 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.15 | 1.42 | 4.34 | 3.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 131 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.9 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.3 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.8 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.6 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.2 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Asbury Health Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 104 eligible stays.
9.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 121 eligible stays.
6.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 46 eligible stays.
45.6% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 68 residents counted.
1.3% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 75 residents counted.
3.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 75 residents counted.
68.9% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 45 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: ASBURY HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to Boncrest Resource Group, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asbury Senior Care LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Boncrest Bridge City LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Boncrest Resource Group Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Baker, Amelia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Corrigan, Frank | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Matheny, Cynthia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Payne, Oren | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/03/2024 | |
| Rosenbaum, Maurice | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Baker, Amelia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Krozel, Michaela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/23/2024 | |
| Matheny, Cynthia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Nace, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Rosenbaum, Maurice | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Villella, Holly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/23/2024 | |
| Asbury Health Center | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Asbury Senior Care LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/27/2025 | |
| Baker Tilly Us LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/02/2024 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/24/2025 | |
| Krozel, Michaela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/23/2024 | |
| Matheny, Cynthia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Nace, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Villella, Holly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/23/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.