Home / Pennsylvania / Meyersdale
201 Hospital Drive, Meyersdale, PA 15552 · Somerset County · (814) 634-5966
99 certified beds, about 48 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395661 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 6, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since September 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.41 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
51.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Abraham Smilow, an affiliated group of 7 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 a review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders for two of 34 residents reviewed (Residents 4 and 37).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited mobility receives appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 39).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at safe and appetizing temperatures for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided according to accepted standards of practice for two of 34 residents reviewed (Residents 1 and 55).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical record reviews, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dependent residents the necessary services to maintain nutritional status for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies as well as observations and interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and staff environment was maintained in a safe and sanitary environment in one of two medication rooms (third floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to change an indwelling urinary catheter as ordered by the physician and to change an indwelling urinary catheter as recommended by the urologist for two of four residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accountability for controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) for one of 6 residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at safe and appetizing temperatures.
Inspectors wroteReview of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to revise/update care plans after an incident for one of 5 residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on Review of Pennsylvania's Nursing Practice Act and information submitted from the facility, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a licensed practical nurse's license remained current for one of one licensed practical nurse's reviewed (Licensed Practical Nurse 2). This was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for three of 28 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 38, 52).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated/revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for two of 28 residents reviewed (Residents 4 and 9). A facility policy for Care Plan Revisions Upon Status Change dated April 7, 2025, indicated that the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, and revised as necessary, when a resident experiences a status change. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a mandated assessment of a resident's care needs and abilities) for Resident 4 dated May 2, 2025, indicated that the resident was cognitively intact, required assistance with daily care needs, and had diagnoses that included Multiple Sclerosis (disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders related to bowel protocols for one of 28 residents reviewed (Resident 42).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility job descriptions and personnel files, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff renewed their nurse aide registry to allow individuals to work as a nurse aide for one of three nurse aides reviewed (Nurse Aide 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly labeled for one of 28 residents reviewed (Resident 37).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain laboratory studies as ordered by the physician for one of 28 residents reviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and facility investigative documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from misappropriation of medications for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate accounting of controlled medications (medications with the potential to be abused) for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that call bells were within reach for two of six residents reviewed (Residents 3, 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care for pressure ulcers in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to ensure that recommendations from a wound consultant were reviewed with the attending physician for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 2) who had pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean, homelike environment in the second floor ice room and in resident rooms for one of eight residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and manufacturer's instructions, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that battery packs were replaced in mechanical lifts.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that clinical records were complete and accurately documented for one one of six residents reviewed (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly secured in the medication cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the designated interdisciplinary team member obtained the required information from the contracted hospice provider for one of 31 residents reviewed (Resident 26) who were receiving hospice services.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and resident's representative in writing of the transfer and reason for hospitalization for one of 31 residents reviewed (Resident 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physicians orders were followed for one of 31 residents reviewed (Resident 21).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, as well observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential safety hazards related to the facility's hot water temperatures.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accountability of controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) for three of four residents reviewed (Residents 2, 3, 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated/revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for four of seven residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, 4, 6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse for one of seven residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to administer medications timely for a wound infection for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 1) and failed to follow treatment recommendations for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and written menus, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their planned menu.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record reviews, as well as observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop individualized care plans that included the resident's individualized care needs for two of 20 residents reviewed (Residents 4, 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated/revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for one of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 17).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, clinical records, and the facility's investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free from accident hazards as possible and failed to develop and implement interventions to prevent falls for one of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 6) who had a history of falling.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that weekly weights were obtained as recommended by the dietician for one of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 4) who had a weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that podiatry appointments were carried out, failed to follow podiatry recommendations, failed to provide weekly surgical wound assessments, and failed to provide treatments for an ingrown toenail resulting in an infection and pain for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 2).
14 fire safety citations on file: 1 on August 6, 2026, 3 on July 31, 2025, 10 on August 15, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.41 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.02 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.78 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.0% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 63.6% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.99 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 3.56 on weekdays and 3.02 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 8.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.57 in April to June 2025 to 3.41 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 | 3.41 | 0.59 | 3.56 | 3.02 | 8.6% | 0 of 90 | 48 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.74 | 0.65 | 3.87 | 3.40 | 5.0% | 0 of 92 | 44 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.58 | 0.66 | 3.66 | 3.35 | 15.9% | 0 of 92 | 47 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.57 | 0.68 | 3.67 | 3.31 | 15.7% | 0 of 91 | 46 |
| 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 | 14.4 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.4 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Casselman Healthcare 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 (40.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
40.2% 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. 32 eligible stays.
11.7% 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. 36 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 10 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 8 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 11 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 11 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 5 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: MEYERSDALE SNF OPERATING COMPANY LLC. CMS links this home to Abraham Smilow, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghc SNF Opco Holding Company LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2023 |
| Smilow, Abraham | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 95% | 04/01/2023 |
| Blough, Brenda | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/29/2023 | |
| Smilow, Abraham | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Thimons, David | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Smilow, Abraham | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Blough, Brenda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/29/2023 | |
| Smilow, Abraham | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Thimons, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Ghc Consulting Company LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Ghc SNF Propco Holding Company LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/15/2025 | |
| Meyersdale SNF Propco Company LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/14/2025 | |
| T3 Real Estate Initiatives LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/15/2025 | |
| Blough, Brenda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/29/2023 | |
| Smilow, Abraham | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Thimons, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 |
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.