Home / Pennsylvania / Cabot
134 Marwood Road, Cabot, PA 16023 · Butler County · (724) 352-1571
142 certified beds, about 136 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395684 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 8, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since October 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,021 in the last three years; the largest was $8,021, and the latest is dated July 12, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.45 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.81 of those hours.
36.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Concordia Lutheran Ministries, an affiliated group of 8 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 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of policy, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly maintain kitchen equipment in a sanitary condition creating the potential for cross contamination in the main kitchen of the facility. A review of facility policy Food Safety and Sanitation dated 1/3/25, indicated all local, state and federal standards and regulations are followed in order to assure a safe and sanitary food service department. During an observation on 8/4/25, at 10:55 a.m., of the walk-in cooler in the main kitchen, conducted with Dietary Supervisor (DS) Employee E2, revealed that the cold air condenser unit had a build-up of dust, grime, and dark colored debris around the fan covers and the area of the condenser immediately around the fans. DS Employee E2 confirmed observation by surveyor when viewed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that the necessary resident information was communicated to the receiving health care provider for four of six residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R11, R42, R143, and R201), and failed to notify the resident or resident's representative of the facility bed-hold policy (an agreement for the facility to hold a bed for an agreed upon rate during a hospitalization) for three of six resident hospital transfers (Residents R4, R11, and R143).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medications for one of four residents (Resident R171) the pharmacy driver left medications unattended and unsecured during a delivery during one observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to offer residents the opportunity to vote for the May 2025 election.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate the call bell needs for one of five residents (Resident R80).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have complete contact information for the State Long Care Ombudsman program posted at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents medication regime was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication for one of four residents (Resident R10). Review of facility policy Use of Psychotropic Medication(s) date 1/3/25, indicated that residents only receive psychotropic medications when other nonpharmacological interventions are clinically ineffective. Additionally, these medications should only be used to treat the resident's medical symptoms and not used to discipline or staff convenience, which would deem it a chemical restraint. A psychotropic drug is any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behaviors. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans that included specific and individualized interventions to address the care needs of residents for one of two residents reviewed (Resident R84), relating to visual impairment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents received proper treatment for pressure ulcers for one of five residents (Resident R5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to identify and assess a resident for smoking safety in a timely manner for one of two residents (Resident R89).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor resident's personal refrigerators to ensure that food is properly stored and maintained for two of two residents (Residents R5 and R143), and failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented for two of three residents (Resident R10 and R40).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete Influenza vaccination consent and administer the Influenza vaccination in a timely manner for one of five residents (Resident R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice in the identification of a resident's transfer destination prior to disposition of a body for two of three residents (Resident CRR1 and CRR2).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label food products in the dry storage area and maintain sanitary conditions in the dish room and kitchen which created the potential for cross contamination in the designated main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to determine the ability to self-administer medications for three of six residents (Residents R24, R77, and R281).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that appropriate treatment and services were provided for five of seven residents with a urinary catheter (a hollow, flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and leads to a drainage bag) (Resident R38, R63, R78, R93 and R99).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise/update care plans for two of seven residents to accurately reflect the current status of the resident (Resident R54 and R86).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility procedure review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents were provided appropriate treatment and care of a medical device for one of four residents (Resident R283).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice and obtain physician orders regarding the dressing displacement for one of three residents (Resident R100).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions of respiratory equipment for two of eight residents reviewed (Residents R38 and R281), and failed to care plan use and management of respiratory equipment for two of three residents (Resident R5 and R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain medications were administered as ordered by the physician and failed to notify the physician of missed medications for one of four residents (Residents R335).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medical supplies and biologicals in one of four medication rooms (Blankenbuehler medication room).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) documents, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions for one of two residents with an enteral feeding (Resident R96), and failed to prevent the potential for cross contamination during a dressing change for one of three residents (Resident R93).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision that resulted in an elopement (resident exits to an unsupervised or unauthorized area without the facility's knowledge) for one resident. This failure created an immediate jeopardy situation for one of eight residents who were identified as at risk for elopement (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of job descriptions, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that necessary care and services were provided to residents requiring adequate supervision to prevent elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the dish room which created the potential for cross contamination. (Main Kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two of two residents reviewed (Residents R134 and R136).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a plan of care to include a focus and interventions to for a resident's tube feed in order to maintain a resident's highest practicable physical well-being as required for one of six residents reviewed. (Resident R114)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a order as prescribed by the physician for one of four residents (Resident R66).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and the clinical record and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and treatment as ordered for two of four residents with foley catheters reviewed (Resident R66, R106).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure nurse aides who failed to become certified within four months were not working in the facility for one of five Employees reviewed (Nurse Aide, Employee E5). Findings Include: Review of Nurse Aide (NA), Employee E5 personnel file indicated he was hired on 5/15/23, as a non-certified nursing assistant. Review of NA, Employee E5's personnel file indicated he completed the Nurse Aide Training program on 6/8/23. A further review indicated NA, Employee E5 failed the Nurse Aide Written exam on 10/5/23. Review of the facility Deployment Sheets dated 10/7/23, indicated NA, Employee E5 worked 2:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. Review of the facility Deployment Sheets dated 10/10/23, indicated NA, Employee E5 worked 10:00 p.m. until 6:30 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel files and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for two out of five personnel files (Nurse Aide Employee E2 and E3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel files and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the minimum 12 hours of nurse aide training per year and annual training on dementia management for one out of five nurse aide personnel files were completed (Nurse aide, Employee E4).
10 fire safety citations on file: 5 on August 8, 2025, 3 on August 29, 2024, 2 on October 20, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 12, 2024 | Fine | $8,021 |
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) | 3.45 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.06 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.83 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.6% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 16.7% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.13 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 3.61 on weekdays and 3.06 on weekends, 15% 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 3.60 in April to June 2025 to 3.45 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 | 3.45 | 0.81 | 3.61 | 3.06 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 136 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.81 | 3.57 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 135 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.82 | 3.57 | 3.10 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 136 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.60 | 0.72 | 3.75 | 3.22 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 137 |
| 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 | 18.1 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 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 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.4 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.7 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.2 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.9 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Concordia Lutheran Health and Human Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (64.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
64.4% this home
Better than 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. 334 eligible stays.
12.5% 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. 360 eligible stays.
8.6% 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. 198 eligible stays.
54.3% 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. 197 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. 230 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 230 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. 1 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: CONCORDIA LUTHERAN HEALTH AND HUMAN CARE. CMS links this home to Concordia Lutheran Ministries, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 3.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concordia Care Network | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Concordia Lutheran Ministries | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/22/2013 |
| Beilstein, Karen | Corporate director | Individual | 12/15/2021 | |
| Falbo, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Frndak, Keith | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2013 | |
| Frndak-Suder, Kay | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2013 | |
| Heintz, Frederick | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2016 | |
| Hoffman, Paul | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Hortert, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Ingram, Misty | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Young, Tammy | Corporate director | Individual | 01/06/2015 | |
| Falbo, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Frndak, Keith | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Hortert, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2016 | |
| Beilstein, Karen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/15/2021 | |
| Beilstein, Karen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/15/2021 | |
| Falbo, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Frndak, Keith | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Hortert, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2016 | |
| Oster, Marc | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 |
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.