Home / Pennsylvania / Scranton
1101 Vine Street, Scranton, PA 18510 · Lackawanna County · (570) 344-6177
145 certified beds, about 133 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395103 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 21, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since February 2024, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $12,418 in the last three years; the largest was $12,418, and the latest is dated November 21, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.47 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.56 of those hours.
46.8% 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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, facility investigative documentation, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement adequate accident prevention measures when staff transported a resident identified as being at risk for falls through the hallway in a shower chair, for one out of 8 residents sampled (Resident 1) resulting in actual harm including a frontal scalp hematoma. This deficiency is cited as past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a manner that ensured food was prepared, distributed, and served under sanitary conditions and free of pest infestation. The presence of live and dead cockroaches in food preparation and storage areas created a high risk of contamination of food, utensils, and food-contact surfaces with disease-causing organisms. This failure created an increased potential for foodborne illness and placed 135 of 135 residents in a situation of Immediate Jeopardy to their health and safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of facility policy, facility-provided documentation, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests, and rodents on two out of four resident nursing units (Nursing Units 3 and 4) and in the kitchen of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of facility policy, facility-provided documentation, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of insects, pests, and rodents on two out of four resident nursing units (Nursing Units 3 and 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set for three of 30 residents sampled (Resident 11, 43, and 133).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included individualized interventions for maintaining skin integrity for two out of 30 residents sampled (Residents 4 and 42).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of quality by failing to ensure that licensed nurses accurately administered prescribed medication according to the provider's parameters for two out of 30 sampled residents (Resident 125 & Resident 72).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to demonstrate that a resident's discharge from the facility was appropriate and necessary for one of 30 sampled residents (Resident 94).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility policies, professional guidelines, staff interviews, resident observation (including wound observation) and staff interview, and documentation review, it was determined the facility failed to implement appropriate interventions consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent the development and worsening of a pressure injury for one resident (Resident 44) and further failed to conduct timely and thorough assessment of a pressure sore and initiate timely treatment to promote healing and prevent worsening of an existing pressure sore for one resident (Resident 77) of 30 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to attempt non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain prior to the administration of a narcotic pain medication prescribed on an as needed basis and failed to ensure the physician orders were followed for one resident (Resident 136) of 30 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility provided investigative documentation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement an effective, individualized, person centered care plan to address a resident's dementia related combative behavior for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 91).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of resident clinical records, select facility policy, staff, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that one of the 30 residents sampled was free of a significant medication error (Resident 94).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate resident food allergies or intolerances for one of 30 sampled residents (Resident 82).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility did not follow physician-ordered diagnostic evaluation for suspected scabies for one resident (Resident 75), to possibly prevent and mitigate the spread of scabies in the facility and that an additional resident of 30 residents sampled (Resident 52) was identified with scabies on microscopic exam resulting in multiple residents in the facility being treatment for exposure, creating a potential for transmission among residents on impacted units.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, facility provided investigative information, facility education records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide dementia and behavior related training to one employee out of two employee education records reviewed (Agency Employee 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide residents or their representatives with written information of the facility's bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital of three residents out of 27 residents sampled (Residents 27, 124, and 102).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for medication administration for three resident out of 27 sampled (Resident 121, 124, and 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the consultant pharmacist failed to identify drug irregularities (dual anti-depressant therapy and justification for antipsychotic medication) when completing monthly medication reviews and the facility failed to assure that resident's attending physician timely acted upon pharmacist identified irregularities in the medication regimen for two residents out of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications (Residents 114 and 130).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and safe resident environment on one of four resident care units (5th floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility's abuse policy, clinical records, and select investigative reports and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to assure that one resident (Resident 289) was free from sexual abuse perpetrated by another resident (Resident 102) and one resident (Resident 25) was free from neglect out of 27 residents sampled.
Inspectors wrotereview, and staff interview it was revealed the facility failed to implement its abuse prohibition procedures to identify potential sexual abuse, timely notify administration and the State Survey Agency, report to the resident representatives and physician, and promptly investigate alleged sexual abuse of one resident out of 27 sampled (Resident 289).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide documented evidence that interventions for significant weight loss were consistently implemented as planned to promote weight stabilization for one resident (Resident 67) out of seven sampled residents at nutritional risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the ready availability of necessary emergency supplies for two residents out of three sampled receiving hemodialysis (Residents 121 and 187).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to offer routine annual dental services for one Medicaid payor source (Resident 88) out of four residents sampled for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to conduct meal service in a manner respectful of each resident's personal dignity for one of nine residents observed at the breakfast meal (Resident 43).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete clinical records for one of 10 sampled residents (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and activities programming and participation records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the needs, interests and functional abilities of residents including two of 25 sampled residents (Residents 83 and 117).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and controlled drug shift count records, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures for reconciling and accounting for the use and administration of controlled drugs on three of five medication carts reviewed (3rd high, 3rd low, and 2nd).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide a functional communication system to maintain the resident's ability to communicate for one of one residents sampled with communication needs/deficits (Resident 122).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, information submitted by the facility, and select facility reports and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary supervision and effective safety measures to monitor the whereabouts and activities of one out of two sampled residents with wandering behavior (Resident 108) to maintain resident safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately monitor a fluid restriction prescribed to address a resident's clinical condition and maintain fluid balance and adequate hydration status for one resident receiving dialysis (Resident 54) out of 25 sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary antibiotic drugs for one out of five residents sampled prescribed antibiotic drugs (Resident 40).
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 21, 2025 | Fine | $12,418 |
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) | 4.47 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.56 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.99 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.64 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.27 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.8% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.73 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 4.66 on weekdays and 3.99 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.97 in April to June 2025 to 4.47 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 | 4.47 | 0.56 | 4.66 | 3.99 | 11.5% | 0 of 90 | 133 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.40 | 0.50 | 4.55 | 4.02 | 16.1% | 0 of 92 | 133 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.22 | 0.51 | 4.34 | 3.92 | 13.9% | 0 of 92 | 134 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.97 | 0.47 | 4.07 | 3.70 | 12.1% | 0 of 91 | 134 |
| 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.
Nurse aide training here: a state-approved CNA program is listed at this home's address and phone number (state list: PDE Approved NATCEP by County, as of March 1, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Elan Skilled Nursing & Rehab CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
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 | 16.8 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.8 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.4 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.9 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Elan Skilled Nursing and Rehab, a Jewish Senior Li's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.9% 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. 201 eligible stays.
8.8% 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. 222 eligible stays.
6.9% 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. 167 eligible stays.
51.2% 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. 168 residents counted.
0.5% 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. 209 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 208 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 45 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: JEWISH HOME OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applegate, Mary Rose | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2020 | |
| Affinity Health Services | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2020 | |
| Applegate, Mary Rose | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2018 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
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.