Home / Pennsylvania / Honesdale
23 Ellen Memorial Lane, Honesdale, PA 18431 · Wayne County · (570) 253-5690
128 certified beds, about 116 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1976
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395357 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 10, 2025, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 30 health citations since March 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.57 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.44 of those hours.
55.4% 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 30 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, facility investigative documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from neglect by not providing care with the required assistance of two staff members and the use of a mechanical lift as planned to ensure safety and prevent major injuries. As a result, the resident sustained a fracture of the ankle with actual harm for one out of five residents reviewed (Resident CR1). This deficiency is cited as past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to timely notify the resident's responsible party of a change in condition for one resident out of 6 residents sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, laboratory reports, intake documentation, facility records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure one resident (Resident 1) out of six residents reviewed, received timely assessment, monitoring, and intervention following a significant change in condition, including failure to ensure timely follow up of ordered diagnostic testing and failure to identify and address inadequate fluid intake.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, laboratory reports, physician orders, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure laboratory services were provided in a timely manner and failed to ensure appropriate follow up of ordered laboratory testing for one resident (Resident 1) out of the six residents sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility policy. facility investigative reports, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident of unknown origin to rule out abuse, neglect or mistreatment as the potential cause, for one out of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to fully develop and revise a person-centered comprehensive care plan to meet the individualized needs of one resident out of 20 sampled (Resident 67).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement individualized approaches to prevent declines in bowel continency and restore normal bowel function to the extent possible for one resident (Resident 65) out of 20 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure coordination of care and services between the facility and the Hospice Agency for two residents (Residents 69 and 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, clinical records and select investigative reports, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that three residents out of the five sampled for abuse (Residents 65, 73, and 89) were free from physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and schedule of activities programming and resident activities 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 three residents out of 21 sampled (Residents 77, 74, and 80).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record and select policy 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 two residents out of 21 sampled. (Resident 35 and 43)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and facility incident reports, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to maintain the highest practicable level of mental, physical and psychosocial well being of three residents with a diagnosis of dementia out of 21 sampled residents (Residents 74, 80, and 77 ).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and the facility's abuse prohibition policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their established procedures for thoroughly investigating an injury of known source, a fractured leg, sustained by one resident, to rule out abuse, neglect or mistreatment as the potential cause for out of 21 residents sampled (Resident 57).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and clinical records, staff and resident interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary behavioral health care to promote the highest practicable physical and psychosocial well-being of one resident out of 21 sampled (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records, select facility policy, current infection control guidance and the facility's resident testing logs for COVID-19 infection, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement and maintain infection control practices, including infection control precautions, to prevent spread of infection COVID-19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of select facility policy, and grievances lodged with the facility and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive grievance policy and ensure the necessary information for filing a grievance was posted and/or provided/available to residents or their representatives and failed to make residents aware of the procedure for filing a concern/grievance, written or verbally, and the procedure to file an anonymous grievance as reported by three of four residents (Residents 5, 52, and 73) during a group meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility procedures and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to accurately monitor bowel activity and carry out physician orders for a prescribed bowel protocol to promote normal bowel activity for one resident out of 22 sampled (Resident 31).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the attending physician failed to timely act on a pharmacist's identification of an irregularity in the drug regimen of one resident out of five sampled (Resident 74).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, select facility policy review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accurate labeling to promote accurate drug administration to one resident (Resident 2) out three residents observed during medication administration and failed to adhere to use by/discard dates for multi-dose medications on one medication carts out of three medication carts reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, test tray results, and a review of minutes from the facility's food committee meeting and select facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food at safe and palatable temperatures.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's antibiotic stewardship program and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to fully develop and implement an antibiotic stewardship program.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 22 sampled (Resident 78).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility incident reports, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan to address the current safety needs of one resident to prevent recurrence of falls for one resident (Resident 78) out of 22 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to administer pain medication as prescribed by the physician and attempt non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain prior to the administration of pain medication prescribed on an as needed basis for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident 65).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to render trauma informed care to address a resident with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for one out of 22 residents reviewed (Resident 76).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of nurse staffing, and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide and/or efficiently deploy sufficient nursing staff to consistently provide timely and quality of care to residents as required, including timely provision of assistance with activities of daily living, to residents dependent on staff and to accommodate resident the preferences for daily routines to maintain a resident's psychosocial well-being for one resident (Resident 28) out of 22 sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on employee personnel records and Pennsylvania State nurse aide registry information and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure current nurse aide registry verification for two facility employees working as nurse aides in the facility (Employees 5 and 6).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to attempt gradual dose reductions of psychoactive medications and failed to monitor the effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs as treatment for targeted behavioral symptoms and for potential adverse consequences for one resident (Resident 19) out of five residents sampled
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, directives established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and employee vaccine data, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to fully develop and implement procedures to ensure that all staff were vaccinated for COVID-19. The facility's staff vaccination rate was 99.2% at the time of the survey ending March 17, 2023.
10 fire safety citations on file: 4 on January 10, 2025, 3 on March 15, 2024, 3 on March 17, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.57 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.44 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.26 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.25 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 55.4% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 46.2% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
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 3.70 on weekdays and 3.26 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 22.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.35 in April to June 2025 to 3.57 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 | 3.57 | 0.44 | 3.70 | 3.26 | 22.5% | 0 of 90 | 116 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.45 | 3.55 | 3.05 | 21.2% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.53 | 0.38 | 2.67 | 2.16 | 24.9% | 10 of 92 | 114 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.35 | 0.57 | 3.49 | 3.00 | 15.5% | 0 of 91 | 111 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.2 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.3 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.4 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.5 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.8 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ellen Memorial Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (39.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.8% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 96 eligible stays.
12.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 131 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 94 eligible stays.
45.8% 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. 96 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. 113 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 113 residents counted.
94.0% 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. 50 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.