Home / Pennsylvania / Brackenridge
1050 Broadview Boulevard, Brackenridge, PA 15014 · Allegheny County · (724) 224-9200
97 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395011 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 24, 2026, inspectors cited 0 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 88 health citations since September 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $79,454 in the last three years; the largest was $42,602, and the latest is dated March 27, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.31 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.44 of those hours.
46.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
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 88 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement care and services consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent the new development of a pressure ulcer. This resulted in actual harm of the development of a facility-acquired Stage 3 (full thickness skin loss that extends into the subcutaneous fat) pressure ulcer for one of three residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions creating the potential for cross contamination in the main kitchen of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation that medication regimen reviews (MRR) were completed and reviewed by the resident's attending physician monthly for three of seven residents (Resident R4, R11, and R26).
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 two of five residents (Residents R67 and R85).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident records, resident business office documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident right to manage their financial affairs was upheld by obtaining a signed authorization for one of three sampled resident records (Resident R37).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for one of five resident wheelchairs (Resident R5) and failed to have bath linens in good condition for one of three bath linen items (washcloths).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess the functional status of the individual resident to determine if the use of a bolster (a long, thick cushion) is a restraint for one of two residents (Residents R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for two of six residents (Residents R1 and R4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written summary of the baseline care plan to the resident and/or representative for two of six residents reviewed (Resident R78 and R94).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of three residents (Residents R64).
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 (G- Tube, a tube inserted in the stomach through the abdomen) received appropriate treatment and services to prevent potential complications for one of four residents (Resident R64).
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 five residents (Residents R64 and R85).
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 and failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered care plan for a resident who was at risk for re-traumatization for one of two residents (Resident R30).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner for one of three medication rooms (3 South Medication Room).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to obtain laboratory services as ordered for one of five residents reviewed (Closed Resident Record CR99).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician order to discharge for two of three residents (Resident R1, R2).
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 three of four residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Resident R1, R2, and R3), 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 four resident hospital transfers (Resident R1, R2, and R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, Resident Council meeting minutes, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to consider the views of a resident and act promptly on concerns and recommendations concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility for three of three months (December 2025, January 2026, and February 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain laboratory results as ordered by the physician and failed to provide evidence that the physician or resident representative were notified of the results for two of three residents reviewed (Resident R3, and R4).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified Food Service Director to manage the daily operations of the Dietary Department for four of 12 months (October 20, 2025, through January 8, 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents food products based on their preferences for approximately 38 out of 76 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label and date food products, in the Main Kitchen. (Main Kitchen).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to individualize care plans to address the resident specific nutritional concerns for two of three residents (Resident R9, and R31), and failed to ensure direct care staff were aware of residents with fluid restriction orders to make certain acceptable parameters of nutritional status were maintained for one of two residents on physician ordered fluid restrictions (Resident R34).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation that medication regimen reviews (MRR) were completed and failed to ensure that any irregularities submitted in the MRR by pharmacy were acted upon timely for three of five residents (Residents R29, R33, and R46).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care was provided in a manner which maintained resident dignity for one of three residents (Resident R9).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain resident medication regimens were free from potentially unnecessary psychotropic (substances that act on the brain to alter cognition, perception, and mood) medications for two of four residents (Residents R33 and R46).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, 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 one of four residents (Residents R31).
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 two residents (Resident R30 and R38).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident clinical records, facility policy and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide consistent and complete communication with the dialysis (a machine that filters wastes, salts, and fluid from your blood when your kidneys are no longer healthy enough to do this work adequately) center for one of three residents (Resident R34).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate behavioral health services to maintain the highest practicable well-being for one of two sampled residents (Resident R58).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to meet resident care needs for two of four residents (Resident R1 and R2), which resulted in harm, when a resident was rolled out of bed without the correct level of assistance and sustained bilateral leg fractures (Resident R1). Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for one of four residents (Residents R1), which resulted in harm, and Resident R1 required a blood transfusion.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the appropriate assistance for bed mobility was provided for one of four residents (Residents R1), which resulted in harm when Resident R1 rolled out of bed and sustained bilateral leg fractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of neglect within 24 hours to the local state field office for one of five residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that a physician assessment was timely completed after a fall for one of four residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility provided documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect one of four residents (Resident R1) from sexual abuse, prevent psychosocial and/or physical harm, and physical discomfort that resulted in actual harm for Resident R1.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, education literature, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to recognize and report timely suspicions of sexual abuse for one of three residents (Resident R1) until it was actually witnessed by a staff member.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record and facility document review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary services and failed to make certain appropriate treatment, and services for dementia were provided to ensure safety for one of three residents (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 to prevent sexual abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documents and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dental services to meet the needs of residents for three of four residents reviewed (Residents CR1, R2, and R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the family of a change in condition in a timely manner for one of three residents (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to schedule an appointment for outside services in a timely manner for one of three residents reviewed (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident records, admission documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain admission documentation three two of seven residents (Resident R1, R2, R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label and date food products on the nursing unit pantries which created the potential for cross contamination in the designated kitchen pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of clinical documentation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to have accurate narcotic count sheets from shift to shift, failed to document the disposition of narcotics accurately, and failed to identify discrepancies between Medication Administration Records and narcotics count sheets for three of five closed record residents (CR Resident R1, CR2, and CR3). Review of facility policy Management of Controlled Drugs, dated 8/24/23, indicated Schedule II to V controlled drugs must be disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations. Review of facility documentation shift count ( a tool used for nursing to confirm the narcotic count is accurate shift to shift ongoing/off-going) for 3rd floor indicated the following: 10/6/24 status of count: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility investigation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision, assistance, and proper equipment to prevent injuries during a transfer for one of four residents reviewed (Resident R47). This failure resulted in Resident R47 having pain, bruising, and was transferred to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured rib, which were sustained during an improper transfer. The facility failed to maintain resident Kardexes (a snapshot of resident care needs) and care plans to reflect accurate mobility transfer statuses. This failure created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for nine of 17 residents reviewed (Residents R47, R7, R21, R29, R33, R37, R51, R68, and R75).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interviews, staff interviews, resident council minutes, and grievance review, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of four of eight residents (Resident R11, R28, R32, and R69). Findings Include: Review of the facility's PBJ Staffing Data Report Quarter 4 2023 (July 1 - September 30) indicted the facility was triggered for one star staffing rating and excessively low weekend staffing. Review of the facility's PBJ Staffing Data Report Quarter 2 2024 (January 1 - March 31) indicted the facility was triggered for one star staffing rating and excessively low weekend staffing. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to properly serve food in a sanitary manner to prevent foodborne illness in the Main Kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, facility documents, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that necessary care and services were provided to residents to ensure safe resident mobility transfers.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff to comply with state laws regarding mandated minimum staffing requirements.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of 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 five of five residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R6, R44, R51, R62, and R83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for three of three residents (Residents R51, R62, and R83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, 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 five of five resident hospital transfers (Residents R6, R44, R51, R62, and R83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident interviews and observations, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a beautician services for four of seven residents (Residents R6, R24, R32, and R61).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct ongoing accurate assessments to ensure that bedrails were used to meet residents' needs and the risks associated with bedrail usage for four of four residents (Residents R7, R21, R37, and R79).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to residents receiving medications via feeding tube for two of three residents reviewed (Residents R23 and R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, staff education records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct at least 12 hours of in-service education, within 12 months of their hire date anniversary, for nurse aides as required for five of five nurse aides (NA Employees E4, E21, E22, E23, and E24)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, employee education records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on behavioral health for five of five staff members (Nurse Aide Employee E4, E21, E22, E23, and E24).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, resident interview, and employee interviews it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate the needs of a resident with a visual impairment for one of two residents (Resident R32).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, facility submitted documents, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to create an environment free from neglect for one of six residents (Resident R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents for one of two residents (Resident R47), and failed to properly screen an employee by completing a State background check prior to hire for two of five personnel records (Nursing Assistant (NA) Employee E19 and Registered Nurse (RN) Employee E20).
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 two residents (Resident R47).
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 via a Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) level as per physicians order for two of four residents (Resident R62 and R83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide prescribed pressure ulcer treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice for two of two residents (Residents R7 and R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor colostomy site and services consistent with professional standards of practice and failed to implement the colostomy care plan for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R65).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to obtain a diagnosis for hospice services and to ensure the coordination of hospice services with facility services to meet the needs of each resident for end of life care for two of three residents (Resident R65, and R79) and failed to obtain a physicians order to admit to hospice for one of three residents (R65).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection control measures and implement enhanced barrier precautions for residents who required tube feedings for two of three residents (Residents R23, and R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, Food Committee Minutes, cycle menus, Always Available Menu, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to offer alternative menu selections based on resident preferences for four of four weeks of the Spring/Summer cycle menu (Week One, Week Two, Week Three, and Week Four).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner for two of three nursing units (First and Second floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and personnel files, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement its abuse prohibition policies regarding verifying new employees' standing with the Pennsylvania Nurse Aide Registry for one of four new employees reviewed (Nurse Aide, Employee E5) and failed to ensure that reference checks were obtained prior to hire for one of four Nurse Aide files reviewed (Nurse Aide, Employee E5)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were provided food that accommodates resident's allergies for one of 7 residents reviewed. (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of employee files and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that certified nurse aides received registry verification following the expiration of nurse aide registration for one of four nurse aides (Employees E1).
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 one out of five personnel files (Employee E1).
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 four of 34 residents reviewed (Residents 2, 4, 6, 8). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, manufacturer's instructions, meal schedules, and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free from significant medication errors for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 6). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and personnel files, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the status of nursing licenses were checked with the State Board of Nursing for one of one newly hired nurses (Registered Nurse 1) and failed to ensure that references were checked from previous employers and/or current employers for one of one newly hired nurses reviewed (Registered Nurse 1). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility's policies, clinical records, and personnel files, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported to the State Survey Agency (Department of Health) for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 25). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to rule out abuse or misappropriation as the possible cause of a change in condition for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 25). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure that physicians' orders were followed, and failed to ensure that hypoglycemia protocols were followed as ordered by the physician for two of 34 residents reviewed (Residents 10, 25). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' clinical records were complete and accurately documented for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 25). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to fully investigate injuries of unknown origin for one of two residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, infection control documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an infection control program that included a system of surveillance to identify possible communicable diseases or infections for four of 12 months (October 2022 - January 2023).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean homelike environment for three of eight resident rooms (Resident R37, R47, and R67). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Quality of Life - Homelike Environment last reviewed 8/24/23, indicated the residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Review of the admission record indicated Resident R37 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident R37's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 6/6/23, indicated the diagnoses of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD a lung disease that blocks airflow and makes it difficult to breathe), diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), and quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs). Observation of Resident R37's room on 9/5/23, at 9:32 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan that included risk for wandering and interventions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for one of twelve residents (Resident R193).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain physician orders for a nothing my mouth (NPO) oral diet order for one of four residents (Resident R73), and failed to notify the physician of decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels and failed to assess a resident with hypoglycemia (low blood glucose), for one of five residents (Resident R43)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, resident interviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received timely identification of wandering risk that resulted in an elopement (resident exits to an unsupervised or unauthorized area without the facility's knowledge) for one of four residents (Resident R193).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility assessment, facility Nurse Aide job descriptions, personnel files and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for four out of five personnel files (Nurse Aide Employee E9, Nurse Aide Employee E10, Nurse Aide Employee 11, and Nurse Aide Employee E12).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have a designated Infection Preventionist (IP) qualified with specialized training in infection prevention and control for three of twelve months (April 2023 - June 2023).
7 fire safety citations on file: 3 on July 24, 2026, 1 on June 26, 2025, 3 on August 8, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 27, 2025 | Fine | $42,602 |
| August 8, 2024 | Fine | $36,852 |
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) | 3.31 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.44 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.87 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.88 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.3% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.8% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.78 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.49 on weekdays and 2.87 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 6.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.70 in April to June 2025 to 3.31 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 | 3.31 | 0.44 | 3.49 | 2.87 | 6.1% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.58 | 3.59 | 3.06 | 5.6% | 0 of 92 | 86 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.76 | 0.55 | 3.90 | 3.39 | 6.1% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.70 | 0.51 | 3.82 | 3.39 | 7.9% | 0 of 91 | 82 |
| 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 | 13.7 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.2 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.0 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.6 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Eden Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.6% 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. 38 eligible stays.
11.8% 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. 57 eligible stays.
6.2% 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. 30 eligible stays.
70.9% 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. 55 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. 69 residents counted.
13.0% 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. 69 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. 10 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: HIGHLAND OPERATING CR LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highland Ventures Cr LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/2014 |
| Dj Highland LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2014 | |
| Highland Mn LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2014 | |
| Sanyo Highland LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2014 | |
| Einhorn, Neal | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Eisenstadt, Jay | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Friedman, Mark | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Scharf, David | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Butts, Hillary | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2014 |
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.
Licensed assisted living residences and personal care homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its Pennsylvania licence record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.