Home / Pennsylvania / Cranberry Township
5 Saint Francis Way, Cranberry Township, PA 16066 · Butler County · (724) 772-5350
150 certified beds, about 126 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395845 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 31, 2026, inspectors cited 26 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 87 health citations since October 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $43,350 in the last three years; the largest was $34,155, and the latest is dated April 3, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.90 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.14 of those hours.
66.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Upmc Senior Communities, an affiliated group of 6 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 87 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation and clinical record, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of two residents reviewed (Resident R1) was free of neglect during care which resulted in actual harm of a fracture of left femoral neck (hip fracture). This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documentation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement effective mobility interventions to promote resident safety, resulting in a preventable accident and actual harm when the resident received a fracture of the left femoral neck (hip fracture), for one of two residents reviewed (Resident R1). This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to identify and or review a change in therapy recommendations for one of three residents (Resident R1). Review of clinical record indicated Resident R1 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of clinical record MDS (minimum data set - a periodic assessment of resident needs) dated 2/8/26, indicated diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, left femur fracture and end stage renal disease (kidneys no longer work well and you need dialysis or a transplant to survive). Review of facility provided documents revealed on 3/5/26 NA was getting Resident R1 up for dialysis. During a transfer of assist x 1 stand and pivot, Resident R1 lost balance and fell. Most recent Kardex indicated Resident R1 is a sit to stand x 2. Xray completed, Resident R1 sent out to the hospital with right distal radius fracture. [...]
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 one of two residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly label and date food products, failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the ice machine, failed to properly restrain hair, failed to verify proper sanitizing strength in the 3-compartment sink in the Main Kitchen (Main Kitchen), and failed to properly monitor refrigerator temperatures in three of three nursing unit kitchenettes (North, East, and West) which created the potential for food borne illness. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Food Receiving and Storage last reviewed January 2026, and previously reviewed indicated that all foods in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, 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 three of three crash carts (West Unit, North Unit, and East Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, resident group meeting, clinical record review, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate the call bell needs for 19 of 19 residents in Resident Council on 1/8/26, two of seven Group residents on 1/29/26, and one of seven residents observed (Resident R41).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, 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 three of six residents reviewed (Residents R2, R45, and R116).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to promote a multidisciplinary approach with care conferences for four of seven resident's reviewed (Resident R5, R10, R40, R119).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of professional standards of practice facility polices, observations, clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that appropriate treatments and services were provided for the use of a foley catheter (thin tube placed in bladder to drain urine) as required for three of seven (Resident R64, R83 and R151).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a trauma survivor with trauma informed care to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for three of five residents (Resident R7, R9 and R56).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, review of Resident Representative concerns, review of facility documents, resident observations, resident and staff interviews, 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 for one of four quarters of facility staffing data (Quarter Three), two of three Resident Council Meetings (November 2025, and January 2026), six of seven residents in a Group meeting, one of three months for Grievances (January 2026), and five of ten residents observed (Residents R41, R73, R76, R79, and R151).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner for three of four medication carts (North Unit Back Hall, [NAME] Unit Front Hall, and East Unit Front Hall).
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 five residents (Resident R155).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician order for a wander guard for one of one resident (Resident R40) and failed to obtain a physician order for a colostomy for one of one resident (Resident R59).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of professional standards of practice, facility policy, clinical records, observation, and interviews with staff and resident, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents received the necessary services to prevent/treat pressure ulcers (injuries to the skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure to the skin) for two of three residents (Residents R83 and R156).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, staff interviews, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for two of four residents (Resident R8 and R34).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide sufficient and timely social services to meet the resident needs for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R33).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to identify parameters for heart medication for one of three residents (Resident R5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a dental appointment was scheduled for one of six residents reviewed (Resident R59).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of regulations, documents submitted to the State agency and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the State agency of a change in the facility's Medical Director at the time of the change.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, review of Quality Assurance attendance records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings with all the required committee members for one of four quarters(Quarter Two on April 25, 2025). Findings Include: The facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program policy dated January 2026, indicated the Administrator/Executive Director is responsible for assuring that the QAPI Program complies with federal, state, and local regulatory agency requirements. Review of Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement sign in sheets and attendance records for Quarter Two of 2025, dated April 25, 2025, failed to indicate the Nursing Home Administrator was in attendance. During an interview on 1/28/26, at 11:00 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that influenza immunization and pneumococcal immunization were offered to two of five residents (Residents R45, and R116).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility in-service documentation, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Effective Communication for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility in-service documentation, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Resident Rights for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility in-service documentation, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility in-service documentation, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Infection Control for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility in-service documentation, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Compliance and Ethics for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel files and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of four sampled Nurse Aides (NA) received a minimum of 12 hours of in-service education per year (NA Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post complete contact information for State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program, and accessible, and complete contact information for State Survey Agency and Adult Protective Services at the facility as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Council meeting minutes, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to consider the views of a resident group and act promptly on recommendations concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility for three of three months (September, October, and November 2025).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an allegations of abuse for one of two residents (Resident R26).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of five residents reviewed (Resident R24).
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 were provided appropriate treatment and care by failing to have physician orders, resident specific care plans, and correct complete assessments for wander guards (a bracelet that alarms when close to an exit door) for four of four residents (Resident R4, R5, R6, and R7), and failed to accurately transcribe a medication upon admission for one of three residents (Resident R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement for one of five residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations in the main kitchen, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to properly date and store food products in a manner to prevent foodborne illness in the main kitchen (Main Kitchen).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete comprehensive wound assessments weekly for one out of seven sampled residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide medications and treatments as ordered by the physician for two of 6 residents (Resident R1 and Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of five residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, documents and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect which resulted in actual harm of abandonment and mental anguish for one of three residents (Resident R1) and resulted in actual harm of a tibial plateau fracture (a break in the upper tibia, the lower leg bone below the knee, that affects the knee joint) for one of three residents (Resident R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision and assistance for bed mobility and transfers to prevent accidents which resulted in actual harm of a head injury for one of four residents (Resident R2) and resulted in actual harm a tibial plateau fracture (a break in the upper tibia, the lower leg bone below the knee, that affects the knee joint) for one of four residents (Resident R3).
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 three of three residents to accurately reflect the current status of the residents' needs (Residents R1, R2, and R3).
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 from significant medication errors for one of three residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that the necessary resident information was communicated to the receiving health care provider for three of four residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R70, R76, and R115).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility 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 four resident hospital transfers (Residents R70, R76, and R115). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Bed-Holds and Returns dated August 2024, indicated all residents/representatives are provided written information regarding the facility bed-hold policies, which address holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospital or therapeutic leave). Residents are provided written information about these policies at least twice: well in advance of any transfer (e.g., in the admission packet); [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to notify a physician of abnormal glucose readings and lab results as per order for three of six residents (Residents R67, R77, and R167) and failed to follow a physician order for two of five residents (Resdient R67, and Resident R115).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with an enteral feeding tube (a tube inserted in the stomach through the abdomen) received appropriate treatment and services to prevent potential complications for four of five residents (Residents R40, R53, R70, and R103).
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 five of six residents (Residents R2, R70, R77, R103, and R317).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for four out of four nurse aide personnel records (Nurse Aides (NA) Employee E16, NA Employee E17, NA Employee E18, and NA Employee E19).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of residents clinical record, resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to meet resident rights for one of 10 residents reviewed (Resident R94).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation of advanced directives or given the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (a written instruction such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for two of four residents reviewed (Resident R70, and R77).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician of a resident's refusal of tube feedings for one of four residents (Resident R50).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility admission documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident rights to make informed decisions and choices about important aspects of residents' health, safety and welfare by making certain residents understand the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) forms and failed to ensure the agreement is explained to the resident and his or her representative in a form and manner that he or she understands for one of three residents (Resident R27).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that a posted grievance policy and procedure met federal guidelines for three of three nursing units and common areas.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical and facility record review, facility provided documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to permit one of three residents who transferred to the hospital with the expectation of returning to the facility, return to the facility in a timely manner. (Resident R50)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to update a care plan for three of ten residents (Residents R1, R50, and R115) to accurately reflect the current status of the resident and care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical and facility record review, facility provided documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for two residents resulting in elopement (resident exited to an unsupervised or unauthorized location without staff's knowledge) for two of two residents (Residents R42, and R114), and failed to follow a prescribed diet order for one of three residents (Resident R50).
Inspectors wroteBased on review facility polices, observations, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that appropriate treatments and services were provided for the use of a urinary catheter as required for three of six residents (Resident R3, R62 and R317) and failed to update a care plan for one of three residents (R317) to accurately reflect the current status of the resident and care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to make certain consistent dialysis communication was maintained for one of two dialysis residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident and staff interview and clinical record review the facility failed to maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for one of three residents (Resident R94).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to dispose or reconcile discontinued medication in a timely manner for one of two medication rooms reviewed (West Medication Room).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review and clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents receiving psychotropic medications have adequate indication for use for one of five sampled residents (Resident R108).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medical supplies in two of four medication carts (North Front Med Cart, and [NAME] Med Cart) and failed to properly store medical supplies and biologicals in one of two medication rooms (North medication room).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food in a form to meet individuals' needs in one of three residents ordered a soft and bite size diet (Resident R42).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility meal delivery times, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to deliver meals in a timely manner for one of two meal observations (West Rooms 374-387).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide adaptive feeding devices for one of three residents (Resident R42).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices related to care of indwelling urinary catheters (tube inserted in the bladder to drain urine) for one of three residents reviewed (Residents R53), failed to prevent cross contamination during a dressing change for one of three residents (Resident R54) and failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions for one of five residents (Resident R54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from neglect for one of five residents (Resident R1), by failing to follow physicians orders during transfer that resulted in actual harm for Resident R1 of right lower extremity laceration with eleven sutures.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision of transfers for one of five residents (Resident R1), which resulted in actual harm for Resident R1 of right lower extremity laceration with eleven sutures.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for three of three nursing units (North Wing, East Wing, and South Wing).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain ongoing communication with the dialysis (a machine filters wastes, salts, and fluid from your blood when your kidneys are no longer healthy enough to do this work adequately) center for three of three residents receiving dialysis (Resident R46, R216, and R218).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, Resident Group interviews, Resident Council meeting minutes, grievances, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to consider the views of a resident and/or family and act promptly on grievances and recommendations concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility for nine of twelve months (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August and September 2023).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interview and observations it was determined the facility failed to ensure the privacy of the resident while providing care for two of four residents observed (Resident R26, and R108). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Personal Care and Privacy dated 1/2/24, indicated to maintain privacy and dignity during personal hygiene and/or procedures. Review of the admission record indicated Resident R26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R26's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 11/8/23, indicated the diagnoses of diabetes (too much sugar), high blood pressure, and coronary artery disease (narrow arteries decreasing blood flow to the heart). Review of Resident R26's physician order dated 1/5/24, indicated to inject Lantus insulin (medication shot to regulate sugar) every morning. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the facility abuse policy for one of three abuse allegations (Resident R62).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, reports submitted to the State, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of verbal abuse in the required timeframe for one of three residents (Resident R62).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, investigation documentations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to rule out neglect for one of three residents (Resident R46).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, 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 for one of three residents' tube feeding (R102), and one of two residents' (R108) parenteral feeding in order to maintain a resident's highest practicable physical well-being as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow physician's orders for one of two residents (Resident R62) with a ventricular assist device (VAD - a device that provides support for cardiac circulation, either partially or completely replacing the function of a failing heart).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe environment resulting in a fall during a transfer for one of three residents (Resident R46).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assure that licensed nurses displayed the appropriate competencies and skills necessary to provide care to two of two residents (Resident R62 and R81) with a ventricular assist device (VAD - a device that provides support for cardiac circulation, either partially or completely replacing the function of a failing heart).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, clinical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of four residents (Resident R108).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to label open medications with a date in one of four medication carts (West Back Hall).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and a review of the facility's assessment and resident census and condition it was determined that the facility failed to implement and document a complete facility wide assessment, which identified the specific resources necessary to care for its specific resident population.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, plans of correction and the results of the current and former surveys, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and make certain that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents were provided appropriate treatment and care for seven of thirteen residents: three of three residents ordered daily weights (Resident R1, R2, and R3), two of five residents with dressing change orders (Resident R4 and R5), and three of six residents with orders for TED hose (specially designed stockings that help prevent blood clots and swelling in the legs) (R4, R6, and R7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a change in prescribed medication treatments for one of five resident records (Closed Resident Record CR1).
28 fire safety citations on file: 9 on January 31, 2026, 9 on January 24, 2025, 10 on February 1, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 3, 2025 | Fine | $34,155 |
| April 16, 2024 | Fine | $9,195 |
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) | 3.90 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.14 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.31 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.30 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.47 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 66.3% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.66 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.13 on weekdays and 3.31 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.02 in April to June 2025 to 3.90 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 | 3.90 | 1.14 | 4.13 | 3.31 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 126 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.07 | 1.25 | 4.28 | 3.54 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 118 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.51 | 1.28 | 4.68 | 4.08 | 2.9% | 0 of 92 | 120 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.02 | 1.26 | 4.23 | 3.51 | 2.4% | 0 of 91 | 117 |
| 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 | 20.6 | 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 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 31.5 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.6 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.7 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.8 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cranberry Place's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.2% 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. 120 eligible stays.
10.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 120 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 50 eligible stays.
55.9% 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. 34 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. 60 residents counted.
8.5% 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. 60 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. 3 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: CRANBERRY PLACE. CMS links this home to Upmc Senior Communities, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upmc Senior Communities Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/09/2002 |
| Upmc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/09/2002 |
| Beckwith III, George | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Blum, Eva | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/12/2014 | |
| Borgo, Angela | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/10/2020 | |
| Caplan, Debra | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Cestello, Louis | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/18/2023 | |
| Clagette, Vaughn | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2019 | |
| Covert, James | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2019 | |
| Davis, Leslie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Dick, Douglas | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2021 | |
| Gabel, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/17/2023 | |
| Ghubril, Saleem | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/20/2023 | |
| Haley, Lisa | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/20/2023 | |
| Humphrey, Kathy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/20/2023 | |
| Jegasothy, Michele | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2004 | |
| Lucido, Eleni | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2022 | |
| Lyons, Michael | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2019 | |
| Montler, Robert | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2013 | |
| Neidich, Douglas | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/07/2019 | |
| Pepperman, Ann | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2016 | |
| Raimy, Mark | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/22/2017 | |
| Scott, Gregory | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Shekhar, Anantha | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2020 | |
| Shipley, Susan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2015 | |
| Solomon, Jeffrey | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Stilley, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2021 | |
| Surma, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2015 | |
| Verbanac, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Wells, Michael | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2020 | |
| Brodine, Deborah | Corporate director | Individual | 05/03/2005 | |
| Hamilton, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Joy, Margaret | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Nace, David | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Simmons, Eileen | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Wesley, Bryant | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Borgo, Angela | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/10/2020 | |
| Brodine, Deborah | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Joy, Margaret | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Simmons, Eileen | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Wesley, Bryant | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2010 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Walter, Ann | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2021 | |
| Baker Tilly Us LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/13/2025 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/30/2025 | |
| Upmc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/09/2002 | |
| Walter, Ann | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2021 |
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.