Home / Pennsylvania / Frackville
500 West Laurel Street, Frackville, PA 17931 · Schuylkill County · (570) 570-8740
117 certified beds, about 104 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1970
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395286 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 6, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since September 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $45,678 in the last three years; the largest was $29,738, and the latest is dated September 10, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.56 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.40 of those hours.
39.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Saber Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 126 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 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy, the facility's infection control log, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain and implement a comprehensive infection prevention and control program.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record review, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were afforded the right to participate in the planning of their care and treatment, including failure to conduct care plan conferences and failure to invite residents to participate in the interdisciplinary care planning process, for two of 25 residents reviewed (Residents 80 and 36).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure effective pain management and failed to implement, monitor, and revise pain interventions to maintain each resident's highest practicable level of well-being for two of 25 residents reviewed (Residents 11 and 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the availability of required emergency dialysis supplies for one resident (Resident 5) and failed to plan individualized care for a resident receiving hemodialysis to ensure the resident's care plan was consistent with physician orders for one resident (Resident 14) out of two residents sampled who received hemodialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to adhere to acceptable storage and labeling for multi-dose medications in one of three medication storage rooms (first floor medication room).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures for smoking safety, as evidenced by two out of six residents sampled for smoking. (Residents 5 and 53).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was administered per physician's orders for one resident out of 25 sampled (Resident 45).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to timely act upon a recommendation to reduce an antianxiety medication (medication used to calm the nervous system and balance brain chemistry) for one of 25 residents sampled (Resident 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a safe, clean and homelike environment in resident areas on two of two resident floors (first floor shower room and second floor dining room and residential units).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of nursing staffing hours and staff to resident ratios, resident census, clinical records, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to ensure that each resident received timely, person-centered care, services, and supervision necessary to maintain the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident population for five of 18 sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, staff interviews, and observation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and implementation of safety interventions to prevent elopement for one resident (Resident 1). These failures placed 12 residents identified at risk for wandering and elopement (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) in an Immediate Jeopardy situation in which the facility's noncompliance has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, review of select facility policies, review of job descriptions, documentation provided by the facility, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility's administration failed to effectively use its resources to ensure resident safety and maintain the highest practicable physical and mental well-being of residents. The facility failed to ensure that measures were implemented to prevent one of twelve residents identified as being at risk for wandering (Resident 1) from exiting the building unattended into an unsafe environment. This deficient practice placed all residents at risk for harm and resulted in immediate jeopardy to residents' health and safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, clinical records, information submitted by the facility, and select investigative reports and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to assure that three residents (Residents 2,3, and 4) out of 3 sampled were free from physical abuse perpetrated by another resident (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to reasonably accommodate residents' need for call bell accessibility for four out of 30 residents sampled (Residents 35, 77, 75, and 83) and to ensure the accessibility of resident room display boards as expressed by 2 out of 6 residents during a resident group interview (Residents 24 and 45).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) consistently was provided showers as planned to maintain good personal hygiene and failed to provide a resident dependent on staff for ADLs, the necessary services to maintain good nutrition for two residents out of 30 sampled (Residents 35 and 103).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and a review of employee personnel records it was determined the facility failed to ensure the qualified part-time professional activities director responsibilities included directing the development, implementation, supervision and ongoing evaluation of the activities program, which includes the completion and/or directing/delegating the completion of the activities component of the comprehensive assessment; and contributing to and/or directing/delegating the contribution to the comprehensive care plan goals and approaches that are individualized to match the skills, abilities, and interests/preferences of each resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide person-centered care for diabetes management and professional standards of practice for one resident out of 30 sampled (Resident 45).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that pain management is provided to residents consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for one resident out of 30 sampled (Resident 36).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures for smoking safety, as evidenced by three out of the three residents sampled for smoking.(Residents 45, 51, and 79).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 30 sampled (Resident 106).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident's comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised as needed to accurately reflect their current needs and services required by one of 30 residents sampled (Resident 101).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the resident's discharge goals for one out of the 30 residents sampled (Resident 36).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary antibiotic drugs for one out of 30 residents sampled (Resident 105).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to timely notify the physician of abnormal lab results for one resident out of 30 sampled (Resident 96).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, payor source data, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide timely and necessary dental services for one resident who is a Medicaid recipient (Resident 35) out of 30 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, select incident reports and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident (Resident 25) out of 20 sampled residents was free from sexual abuse perpetrated by another resident (Resident 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide enteral feedings as ordered to maintain acceptable nutritional parameters and prevent a significant unplanned weight loss for one resident out of 20 residents sampled (Resident 83).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of Food Committee Minutes (completed in addition to Resident Council meetings) and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to put forth sufficient efforts to promptly resolve continued resident complaints and grievances expressed during resident group meetings, including those voiced by three of the six residents interviewed during a group interview (Residents 32, 62, and 69) and one resident out of the 20 sampled (Resident 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of two residents out of 20 sampled (Residents 7 and 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to follow physician orders for bowel protocol for two residents out 20 sampled (Residents 89 and 50) to promote normal bowel activity to the extent possible
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide therapeutic social services to promote the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being of two of the 20 residents reviewed (Residents 46 and 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of select facility policy and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to acceptable storage and use by dates for multi-dose medication and herbal supplements on one of three medication carts and one of three medication storage rooms observed (west short cart, first floor storage room - Residents 9, and 77).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and the facility's smoking policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement established procedures to accurately assess residents for safe smoking ability for three residents out of three identified as a current smoker (Resident 50, 54, and 58).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete the PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) according to the resident assessment for one of six residents reviewed related to PASRR assessments (Resident 58).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to render trauma informed care to a resident with a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for one out of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 58).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the required advance notice, a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (CMS 10123-NOMNC), regarding the termination of Medicare services for one of the three residents sampled (Resident 241).
Inspectors wroteBased on review clinical records and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner and environment, which promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' request for assistance as evidenced by experiences reported by seven residents out of 15 interviewed (Residents 8, 21, 22, 23, 73, 74, and 102).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and orderly environment on three of the three nursing units (Nursing Units 1, 2 and 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility provided documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program.
Inspectors wroteBased on test tray results and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to serve foods at palatable temperatures.
14 fire safety citations on file: 3 on February 6, 2026, 7 on April 11, 2025, 4 on May 10, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 10, 2025 | Fine | $15,940 |
| May 10, 2024 | Fine | $29,738 |
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) | 3.56 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.40 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.25 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.26 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.90 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.5% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 73.3% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 3.68 on weekdays and 3.25 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.20 in April to June 2025 to 3.56 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 | 3.56 | 0.40 | 3.68 | 3.25 | 11.9% | 0 of 90 | 104 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.54 | 0.49 | 3.67 | 3.22 | 13.1% | 0 of 92 | 106 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.25 | 0.47 | 3.39 | 2.90 | 18.1% | 0 of 92 | 106 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.20 | 0.47 | 3.30 | 2.95 | 14.4% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| 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 | 10.0 | 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 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.9 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.2 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.2 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Broad Mountain Health and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.1% 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. 69 eligible stays.
11.3% 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. 64 eligible stays.
6.6% 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. 32 eligible stays.
65.0% 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. 40 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. 51 residents counted.
2.1% 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. 51 residents counted.
96.4% 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. 28 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: BROAD MOUNTAIN HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Saber Healthcare Group, a group of 126 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benjamin N. Volpe Family Dynasty Trust (dated December 29, 2020) | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Bnv Dynasty LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Decanted William I. Weisberg Family Dynasty Trust (dated Sept 30, 2020 | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Saber Healthcare Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2018 | |
| Wiw Dynasty LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Ohi Asset (pa) Frackville LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 12/01/2022 | |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Shg Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Pearlstein, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/03/2025 | |
| Sakalas, Lori | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/06/2024 | |
| Thompson, Jennifer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Weisberg, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| Weisberg, William | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/04/2026 | |
| Citrin Cooperman Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2018 | |
| Ohi Asset (pa) Frackville LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2022 | |
| Rkl LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/26/2023 | |
| Saber Governance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/12/2019 | |
| Saber Healthcare Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2018 | |
| Saber Healthcare Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2018 | |
| Shg Boa LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/31/2026 | |
| Shg Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Shg Mt, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/31/2026 | |
| Nicoluzakis, Gregory | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Pearlstein, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/03/2025 | |
| Sakalas, Lori | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/06/2024 | |
| Thompson, Jennifer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Weisberg, William | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2018 |
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.