Home / Pennsylvania / Bridgeville
3590 Washington Pike, Bridgeville, PA 15017 · Allegheny County · (412) 257-2474
194 certified beds, about 169 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395596 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 16, 2026, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 81 health citations since November 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $211,930 in the last three years; the largest was $140,548, and the latest is dated November 21, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.60 of those hours.
60.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Genesis Healthcare, an affiliated group of 184 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 81 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated in a manner that promotes his/her quality of life and to facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice, for fifteen of thirty-two (Resident R3, R4, R5, R500, R501, R502, R503, R504, R505, R506, R507, R508, R509, R510, and R511). Residents R500-R511 represent a request for confidentially with the interview.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments were accurate and fully completed for 17 of 24 residents (Resident R6, R16, R36, R51, R58, R59, R60, R67, R75, R93, R96, R105, R109, R129, R130, R134, and R139).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy and records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that facility nursing personnel maintain current CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) certification for Healthcare Providers through a CPR provider whose training includes a hands-on session either in a physical or virtual instructor-led setting in accordance with accepted national standards for three of 42 licensed nurses (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employees E1, E3 and E4). Review of the facility policy, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) dated [DATE], indicated Licensed nursing staff must maintain current CPR certification for healthcare providers through CPR training that includes hands-on practice and in-person skills assessment. Online-only certification is not acceptable. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, clinical record review, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that necessary care and services were provided for six of sixteen residents (Resident R9, R13, R16, R81, R99, and R131).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy and 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 19 of 42 licensed nurses (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employees E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17, and Registered Nurse (RN) Employees E18, E19, E20, E21, E22, and E23). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions to maintain nutritional status for three of nine residents reviewed for nutritional concerns (Resident R39, R81, and R164).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain consistent dialysis communication was maintained for two of three residents reviewed (Residents R5 and R164).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical records, medication regimen reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the attending physician documented that they reviewed the pharmacy recommendation or irregularities in a timely manner for four of five residents reviewed (Resident R6, R7, R11, and R101).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an infection control program that included a system of surveillance to identify possible communicable diseases or infections for six of 12 months (January 2026, February 2026, March 2026, April 2026, May 2026, June 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility's infection control policies and procedures and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program for six of 12 months (January 2026, February 2026, March 2026, April 2026, May 2026, June 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to determine whether it was safe to self-administer medications for one of four residents (Resident R151).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility records, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that call lights were accessible for two of eight residents as required (Resident R10 and R53).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care and maintain oxygen equipment for two of eight sampled residents (Residents R3 and R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide culturally competent, trauma care in accordance with professional standards of practice, accounting for the resident's past experiences and preferences in order to eliminate and/or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for one of four residents (Resident R99).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that current and accurate nurse staffing information was posted in the facility at the beginning of each shift for two of six reviewed days.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly store and secure a medication cart, a treatment cart, and failed to store a prescribed alcoholic beverage in a secure location (two medical carts, and one alcoholic beverage).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, Quality Assurance attendance records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings at least quarterly with all of the required committee members for three of four quarterly meeting (August 2025 to March 2026). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Center Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Process (QAPI) reviewed 3/20/26, indicated QAPI activities will be integrated across all care and service areas and include clinical care, quality of life, and resident choice. During an interview on 7/14/26, at 10:35 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was unable to locate the sign-in sheets for the QAPI meetings from August 2025 through March 2026. During an interview on 7/16/26, at 10:00 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident interviews, and meal observations, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident selected menu items for five of nine residents (Resident R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to investigate sexually inappropriate resident behaviors to ensure resident safety for one of five residents (Resident R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly identify residents during medication administration to make certain that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of four residents (Resident R1). This was identified as past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility records, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain call lights were accessible and answered timely for six of seventeen residents as required (Resident R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, staff interviews, and facility reported incident, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents were protected from harmful chemicals that resulted in actual harm for a resident (Resident R1) when the resident ingested ethylene glycol (chemical found in antifreeze) resulting in hospitalization. This failure created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents received appropriate treatment and services to correct assessed problems associated to an event of self-harm for one of two residents reviewed (Resident R1) resulting in actual harm, transfer to the hospital (Resident R1); and the investigation also determined that the facility had no system in place to ensure that other residents in the facility with similar needs were receiving the appropriate mental health services, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of 108 residents (Resident R1).
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 to protect residents from self-harm attempt. This failure resulted in a resident with an history of self-harm to have harmful chemicals in their possession, leading the resident being admitted to the hospital after ingesting ethylene glycol (chemical found in antifreeze) created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of two residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly secure stored medications and/or biologicals in two of three medication rooms (TCU and Harmony Unit Medication Rooms).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, incident investigations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from misappropriation of property for one of four residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to investigate misappropriation of resident property for one of four residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to ensure a safe environment with unrestricted access to the outdoor courtyard area for thirteen of one 168 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of eighteen residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident and staff interviews, Resident Council minutes review, and grievance review, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of eight of eleven residents (Residents R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility provided policies and documentation, clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from staff-initiated abuse. This failure resulted in a staff member physically abusing a resident and multiple staff neglecting care of one of four residents reviewed (Resident R9).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documents, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment on seven of seven nursing units (Leader Unit, C Hall, B Hall, E Hall, G Hall, I Hall and K Hall).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that equipment was in safe operating condition for one of two wash machines.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed maintain sanitary conditions to prevent the potential for cross-contamination or foodborne illness in the main kitchen (Main Kitchen).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, documents, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience on 8/5/25, during the breakfast meal service to one of five residents. (Resident R14) on the secure memory care unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility records, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain call lights were accessible and answered timely for 19 of 21 residents as required (Resident R61, R163, R500, R501, R502, R503, R504, R506, R507, R508, R509, 510, R511, R512, R513, R514, R515, R516, and R517).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident council documents, resident council group interview, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to respond to concerns from resident council and failed to respond to concerns in a timely manner for six out of six months (1/29/25, 2/26/25, 3/26/25, 4/28/25, 5/28/25, and 6/25/25).
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on a review of the resident council minutes, resident council meeting information, resident interviews, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and attractive.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment within the facility for one of five units.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate assistance to prevent falls and injury for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate assistance to prevent falls and injury, for one of 3 residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documentation, cited deficiencies from previous surveys, review of plans of correction documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program failed to correct previously cited deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy and clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility did not ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve a resident's grievance and/or concerns for one of six residents interviewed (Resident R1).
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 elopement for one of twelve residents (Resident R19). This failure created an immediate jeopardy situation for 12 of 12 residents (Residents R19, R4, R17, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25, R26, R27, and R28). This was identified as past non-compliance. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which provides instructions and guidelines for completing required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (mandated assessments of a resident's abilities and care needs), dated October 2024, indicated that a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) is a brief screening test that aids in detecting cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and incident investigations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from misappropriation of property for 18 of 22 residents (Resident R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R16, R17, and R18 ).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of state laws, facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to report allegations of neglect for two of four residents (Resident R2 and R28).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of state laws, facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to investigate possible abuse and/or neglect for three of six residents (Resident R2, R28 and R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medications were properly secured in one of three medication carts (First-floor medication cart for rooms 100-117)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide discharge planning that focuses on the resident's discharge goals and preparation of resident to be active partners in the discharge planning process that focuses on the resident's discharge planning and process for one of eight residents (Closed Record Resident R1 - CRR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident interview, observations, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to assess the clinical appropriateness of medication self-administration for three of 11 residents (Resident R2, R3, and R4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that showers and baths were provided for one of three residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of 11 residents (Resident R5). This was identified as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly secure medication and treatment carts for two of five carts observed (600 hall medication cart, and 100/200 hall treatment cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility activities calendars, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient activities on weekdays and weekends in the secured unit (B Hall).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident records, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to uphold the privacy and dignity of two of three residents reviewed utilizing an indwelling urinary catheter (foley - a thin rubber tube inserted either through the urethra or suprapubic [abdomen] to allow for bladder drainage) (Residents R1 and R2). In addition, the facility failed to uphold the resident's rights to voice grievances without fear of retaliation for four of 17 residents reviewed (Residents R700, R701, R702, and R703) who wish to remain anonymous.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents with suprapubic urinary catheters received appropriate treatment and services consistent with professional standards during catheter care by monitoring placement and skin, changing the catheters and providing care, resulting in actual harm as evidenced by penile split and traumatic insertion and removal for one of three residents (Resident R64) and failure to change a urinary catheter every 30 days as ordered for one of three residents (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for five out of five nurse aides (NA Employee E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of resident and staff interviews and observations it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient portions of food products for seven of 16 residents (Resident R9, R11, R23, R46, R62, R64, and R65).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food products, failed to verify the washing temperature of the dish machine, failed to maintain the air gap and drain pipe for the ice machine, and failed to to make certain dietary staff wear proper hair restraints in the Main Kitchen (Main Kitchen), which created the potential for foodborne illness. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Machine Warewashing and Sanitation, dated 1/3/24, indicated that the facility high temperature machine wash cycle ranges between 150 degrees to 165 degrees, the final rinse temperature is a minimum of 180 degrees. Manufacturer's specifications are followed. Temperatures are recorded after each use/meal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, documentation and review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for Legionella (bacteria that causes disease found in contaminated water) control, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a comprehensive program for water management to monitor the potential development and spread of Legionella and failed to implement control measures for Legionella within the facility for eleven of twelve months (September 2023 through July 2024). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Water Management dated 1/3/24, previously dated 1/24/23, indicated the facility will utilize water management practices to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems. Core Elements of the Water Management Plan are: 1. Establish Water Management Plan team. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, documents, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain a resident was free from abuse and neglect for 20 of 24 residents reviewed (Resident R47, R58, R4, R23, R18, CR401, R104, R16, R12, R22, R89, R76, R96, R7, R51, CR402, R96, R37, R20 and R403).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from misappropriation (the act of stealing something that you have been trusted to care for and using it for yourself) of medications for two of three residents reviewed (Residents R47 and R129).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of resident council meeting minutes, facility concern/grievance log and clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to identify and/or investigate potential abuse and/or neglect for five of eight residents(Resident R2, R47, R58, R4 and R23).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments were completed accurately for four of 15 residents (Resident R19, R69, R76, and R104).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans to meet resident care needs for three of eight residents (Resident R3, R12, and R45).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision during bed mobility and transfers for three of eight residents (Resident R5, R3, and R39).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures to ensure availability of prescribed medications for two of five residents (Residents R104 and R59).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain education regarding the pneumococcal immunization and/or the opportunity to receive the immunization was offered to three of seven residents (Residents R19, R133, and R138).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on the prevention of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation for three of ten staff members (Employee E5, E7, and E8).
Inspectors wroteBased 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 two of five nurse aides (Employees E2 and E5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident fund account statements clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the faciltiy failed to convey resident funds in within 30 days for one of two residents reviewed (Closed Record Resident CR400).
Inspectors wroteBased 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 four of nine staff members (Employee E1, E2, E5, and E7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on resident rights for three of ten staff members (Employee E5, E7, and E8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, 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 six of ten staff members (Employee E1, E2, E5, E7, E8, and E9).
Inspectors wroteBased 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 three of ten staff members (Employee E2, E6, and E7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel in-service training records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on behavioral health for two of ten staff members (Employee E7 and E8).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility provided documents it was determined that facility failed to ensure sufficient nurse aide staff to comply with state laws regarding mandated minimum staffing requirements.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and comfortable environment for residents on three of seven nursing units (B Hall, Harmony, and Pinnacle Nursing Units).
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 elopement for one of five residents (Resident R1). This was identified as past non-compliance. Review of the facility policy Elopement of Patient dated 1/24/23, indicated residents will be evaluated for elopement upon admission, readmission, quarterly, and with a change in condition as part of the clinical assessment process. Those determined to be at risk will receive appropriate interventions to reduce risk and minimize injury. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate the call bell needs of one of five residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities for one of five residents (Resident R1).
15 fire safety citations on file: 2 on July 16, 2026, 1 on January 22, 2026, 4 on August 8, 2025, 8 on August 23, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 21, 2025 | Fine | $140,548 |
| April 2, 2025 | Fine | $15,327 |
| July 2, 2024 | Fine | $56,055 |
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) | 3.39 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.60 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.98 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 60.5% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 65.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 3.76 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 3.49 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 16.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.60 | 3.49 | 3.13 | 16.2% | 0 of 90 | 169 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.42 | 0.65 | 3.56 | 3.06 | 21.6% | 0 of 92 | 170 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.40 | 0.77 | 3.53 | 3.05 | 9.6% | 0 of 92 | 174 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.72 | 3.69 | 3.02 | 27.7% | 0 of 91 | 169 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 21.5 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.6 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.4 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.3 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Bridgeville Rehabilitation & Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.8% 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. 86 eligible stays.
10.0% 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. 109 eligible stays.
8.1% 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. 75 eligible stays.
48.4% 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. 64 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 89 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 89 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 34 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: 3590 WASHINGTON PIKE OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Genesis Healthcare, a group of 184 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summit Care LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2016 |
| Fc-Gen Operations Investment LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Gen Operations I LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Gen Operations II LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Genesis Healthcare Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Genesis Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Skilled Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Summit Care Parent LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Sun Healthcare Group Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Sundance Rehabilitation Holdco Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2016 | |
| Berg, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2016 | |
| Bridgeford, Laura | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Mendelson, Avi | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Lewandowski, Susan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| McMichael, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Lewandowski, Susan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/12/2025 | |
| McMichael, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/12/2025 |
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.