Home / Pennsylvania / Saxonburg
223 Pittsburgh St., Saxonburg, PA 16056 · Butler County · (724) 352-9445
68 certified beds, about 55 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395160 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 23, 2026, inspectors cited 20 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 75 health citations since January 2024, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $339,073 in the last three years; the largest was $270,889, and the latest is dated February 19, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.36 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.77 of those hours.
52.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Embassy Healthcare, an affiliated group of 33 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 75 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, employee file review, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to prohibit and prevent retaliation, as defined at section 1150B(d)(1) and (2) of the Social Security Act for five of fifteen staff members (Terminated Employees E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5) (Staff interviews to remain confidential). Findings Include: Review of the United States Social Security Act, Section 1150B indicated that:(d) Additional Penalties for Retaliation.-(1) In general.-A long-term care facility may not-(A) discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or deny a promotion or other employment-related benefit to an employee, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the employee; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide prescribed treatment and services related to the care of pressure ulcers for four of five residents (Resident R6, R16, R26, and R44).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, 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 16 of 20 residents interviewed and/or observed (R3, R4, R5, R6, R10. R16, R17, R26, R30, R32, R39, R46, R47, R48, R49, and R50).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility policy, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the complete and timely administration of a prescribed medications for 48 of 59 residents (Resident R1 through R48).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medical records on each resident are completely and accurately documented. Findings Include:Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report for 6/11/26, indicated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employee E2 provided the following medications and treatments between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.-83 oral medications-2 topical medications-7 injected medications-1 intravenous medication-6 inhaled medications-4 ophthalmic medications-4 blood sugar assessments-8 nutritional supplements provided-1 tuberculosis test assessed-29 pain assessments-6 skilled nursing assessments-3 whole body skin assessments-2 vital sign assessments-1 weight assessment During an interview on 6/25/26, at 12:50 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility provided documents, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's legal surrogate (power of attorney) was provided access to medical records for one of two residents (Resident R51).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required time frame for six of 24 residents (Resident R3, R6, R27, R15, R17, R20, and R37).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation, clinical records, staff and resident representative interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a cognitive impairment resident (Resident R1) from non-consensual sexual contact by Closed Record Resident CR2 (Resident CR2) who had a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors with Resident R1. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of 58 residents, when Resident CR2 was found exposing genitals to Resident R1, and Resident R1's hands were on Resident CR2's genitals. Findings Include: Review of facility policy Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation dated [DATE], indicated that abuse can be identified as verbal, physical, mental, and sexual. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, closed resident records, business office documents, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to convey funds credited to a resident's family for one of three closed resident records (Closed Resident Record CR3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident clinical records, reports submitted to the State, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to report allegations of sexual abuse for two of three sampled resident records (Resident R1 and Closed Resident Record CR2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation involving an allegation of resident abuse for two of three sampled resident records (Resident R1 and Closed Resident Record CR2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of a job description, facility and clinical records, 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 residents were free from abuse and failed to make certain the facility implemented its abuse policies, creating an immediate jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's job descriptions, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the consistent services of a full-time Director of Nursing (40 or more hours a week) in the facility. Findings Include: Review of the facility provided Director of Nursing (DON) job description, signed and dated 12/22/25, indicated that the DON position purpose was, to plan, organize, develop, and direct the overall operation of the Nursing Service Department in accordance with current federal, stated, local standards, guidelines, and regulations that govern the facility, and as may be directed by the Administrator and the Medical Director, to ensure the highest level of quality care is maintained at all times. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store, label and date food items in the Main kitchen which created the potential for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for four of five nursing staff (Nurse Aide (NA) Employees E10, E11, E12, and E13).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a resident representative's concern, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents have the right to communication and access to persons and services inside the facility. for one of two residents (Resident R64).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation that residents or resident representatives were 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 three residents reviewed (Resident R4 and R5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition for one of three residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that discharge documentation was on record for one of three closed resident records (Closed Resident Record R64).
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 three residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R1), and failed to provide a transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for one of three residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the nutrition services provided met professional standards of quality for comprehensive care plan development for two of twelve months (March and April 2026). Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy Nutritional Management dated 3/1/26, and previously dated 1/21/26, indicated that monitoring of the resident's condition and care plan interventions will occur on an ongoing basis. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, activity documentation, resident council group interview, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities to meet the interests and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for one of three residents (Resident R15) and failed to have sufficient activity staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, facility provided documents, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards and provide safe bed mobility for one of two residents (Resident R32), and that the facility failed to ensure leg rests were applied to a resident's wheelchair prior to moving resident for one of two residents (Resident R53).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident 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 two residents (Residents R10).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, staff interview, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for two of two residents (R14 and R44). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Oxygen Administration dated 3/16/26, indicated oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the residents' goals and preferences. Change oxygen tubing weekly and as needed. Change humidifier bottles when empty. Keep delivery system in plastic bag when not in use. Review of facility policy Comprehensive Care Plans dated 3/16/26, indicated the facility will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed to meet residents pain needs for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R7). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Pain Management dated 3/16/26, indicated the facility must ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. Based upon the evaluation, the facility in collaboration with the attending physician/prescriber, otherhealth care professionals and the resident and/or the resident's representative will develop, implement, monitor and revise as necessary interventions to prevent or manage each individual resident's pain beginning at admission. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide trauma survivors with trauma informed care to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for one of two residents (Resident R43).
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 management to maintain the highest practicable well-being for one of four sampled residents (Resident R50).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide evidence that the licensed pharmacist's medication regimen was reviewed and acted upon timely for one of five sampled residents (Resident R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medical supplies in one of one medication storage rooms (Main Storage Room), and failed to store one of six residents' medications securely (Resident R45).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent cross contamination and implement appropriate transmission-based precautions for one of three residents (Residents R3). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) last reviewed 3/16/26, indicated Enhanced Barrier precautions are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO) that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. An order for enhanced barrier precautions will be obtained for residents with wounds. Gloves and gowns are made available immediately near or outside the resident's room. [...]
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 one of one of the facilities crash cart (a cart that contains supplies in the event of an emergency), (Main Nursing Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from mental and verbal abuse which caused a resident to experience severe psychosocial harm (embarrassment, humiliation) because of the abuse (Resident R1). This situation created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of six residents reviewed (Resident R1). Findings Include: Review of the facility provided policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property review date of 1/21/26, indicated This facility will not tolerate Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of its residents or the Misappropriation of Resident Property. Abuse is the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting in physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on policy, employee files, facility documents, staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all staff had a criminal background check prior to working in the facility for one of seven staff members (Social Worker, Employee E1). The facility failed to identify incidents of abuse/neglect, and timely report and investigate allegations of abuse/neglect for one of six residents (Resident R1). The facility put other residents at risk for abuse/neglect from the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Licensed Practical Nurse LPN), Employee E2, by allowing the staff members to continue to work after abuse/neglect occurred. This failure created an immediate jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, 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 six residents (Residents R2, R3, R9, R10, R11, and R12).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and review of employee files it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified Food Service Director to manage the daily operations of the Dietary Department for three out of three months (January 2026 through March 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of a job description, facility and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that residents were free from abuse and failed to make certain the facility implemented its abuse policies, creating an immediate jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete the Facility Assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to put forth a good faith effort to correct the deficient practice cited during the survey of 3/14/26, by failing to provide adequate staffing to meet the needs of the resident, providing qualifying coursework for the Dietary Manager, provide on sight oversight of daily dietary operations, training the Human Resources Director (Staff member responsible for hiring of qualified staff) to the qualifications of a Dietary Manager, hiring a qualified Dietary Manager to fill a vacant position, and making certain that the Facility Assessment documents are current and accurate as required. (Staffing, training, employment process, and Facility Assessment)
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of facility policy,, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a physician completed the initial visits for three of four residents (Resident R5, R7, and R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to appropriately and timely document progress note in the clinical record for four of four residents (Residents R5, R6, R7, and R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility education documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on effective communication for five of five staff members (Registered Nurse (RN) Employee E15, and Nurse Aides (NA) Employee E8, NA E16, NA E17 and, NA E18).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observation, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain residents were provided necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, for a pressure ulcer (PU/PIs- injuries to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) for one of four residents (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's plan of correction, documents and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make a good faith effort to correct and sustain improvement for one of two citations issued for failure to provide the required number of Nurse Aides (NA) per resident per shift as required (Citation P5520).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, 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 of five of six residents (Residents R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received neurological assessments after an incident involving a fall for one of five residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility provided documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from mental abuse and intimidation for one of two residents reviewed (Resident R1), which resulted in psychosocial harm and mental anguish related to the reasonable person concept.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have the responsible party sign financial papers for one of two residents ( Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility provided documents, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's legal surrogate (power of attorney) was utilized for legal action of non-payment of bills for one of two residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility provided documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one of two residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility provided documents, clinical records, and staff interviews , it was determined that the facility failed to identify and investigate an incident of possible abuse for one of two incidents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified actives director from October 6, 2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's plan of correction, documents and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make a good faith effort to correct and sustain improvement for two of two citations issued for failure to provide the required number of Nurse Assistants (NA) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) per resident per shift as required ( Citations P 5520, and P5530).
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 at the facility as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for two of five rooms (C Hall and Shower Room).
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 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 two of three residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R28 and R61), 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 three resident hospital transfers (Residents R28, R41, and R61), and failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman upon transfer to the hospital for three of three resident hospital transfers (Resident R28, R41, and R61).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS - a periodic assessment of care needs) assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for three of three residents (Resident R66).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents were provided appropriate treatment and care for two of eight sampled residents (Resident R39, and R61).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide trauma survivors with trauma informed care to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for one of three residents (Resident R39).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activity of Daily Living (ADL) assistance for three out of nine residents (Resident R2, R3, and R4).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to notify a family representative of a change in condition for one of three residents. (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to obtain laboratory services as ordered for one of two residents (Resident R1). Findings Include: A review of the facility Medication and Treatment Orders reviewed 3/27/24, indicated physician orders for medications and treatments will be consistent of safe and effective order writing. Treatment orders and follow up appointments will be documented in Point Click Care (PCC) and on the treatment administered record (TAR). A review of Resident R1's clinical record indicates an admission date of 11/21/2023, with the diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease (PVD-narrowing of blood vessels), hypertension (high blood pressure), and atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label and date food products in the reach-in cooler and walk- in freezer and failed to maintain sanitary conditions which created the potential for cross contamination (Main Kitchen).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the personal dignity for a resident during the dressing change observation (Resident R42).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, incident reports, State reportable incidents, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to report an incident of resident-to-resident abuse altercation for one out of five sampled residents (Residents R24).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated and revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for one of four residents (Resident R56).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion for one of three residents (Resident R41).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical and facility record review, facility provided documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for two of six residents, resulting in a fall for one of six residents (Resident R24), and resulting in potential interaction with an unsecured disinfectant for one of six residents (Resident R56).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to identify and meet residents' highest practicable psych-social needs for one of six residents (Resident R33).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to date opened medications and properly store medications in one of three medication carts observed (Middle medication cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent cross contamination during a dressing change for one of four residents (Resident 42) and failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the potential for cross contamination in the sole shower room.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition for twelve of nineteen residents testing positive for Covid-19 (Resident R1, R2, R5, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12, R16, R17, R18, R19).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to obtain physician orders for transmission-based precautions for three of nineteen residents (Resident R1, R5, R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to update a care plan for one of three residents (Resident R23) to accurately reflect the current status of the resident after an elopement event.
8 fire safety citations on file: 1 on May 27, 2026, 2 on April 23, 2026, 1 on June 4, 2025, 4 on July 2, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 19, 2026 | Fine | $270,889 |
| November 13, 2025 | Fine | $63,990 |
| October 17, 2023 | Fine | $4,194 |
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) | 3.36 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.22 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.89 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.70 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.0% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.5% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.80 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 3.42 on weekdays and 3.22 on weekends, 6% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.99 in April to June 2025 to 3.36 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 | 3.36 | 0.77 | 3.42 | 3.22 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 55 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.53 | 0.79 | 3.61 | 3.31 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 56 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.84 | 0.81 | 3.97 | 3.51 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.99 | 0.76 | 4.14 | 3.61 | 0.3% | 0 of 91 | 62 |
| 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 | 9.0 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 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 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.8 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.9 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 33.3 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Embassy of Saxonburg's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 18 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 24 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 17 eligible stays.
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: 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. 19 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. 26 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 26 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. 2 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: EMBASSY SAXONBURG LLC. CMS links this home to Embassy Healthcare, a group of 33 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Handler Family Dynasty Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 11/09/2022 | |
| George S. Repchick 2020 Family Dynasty Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 11/09/2022 | |
| Repchick, George | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Embassy Healthcare Management Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Heritage Employment Services, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Godinez, Danielle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Handler, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Repchick, George | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Shoop, Rebecca | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Embassy Healthcare Management Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/02/2025 | |
| Heritage Employment Services, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/02/2025 | |
| Godinez, Danielle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Shoop, Rebecca | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 |
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.