Home / Pennsylvania / Tunkhannock
30 Virginia Drive, Tunkhannock, PA 18657 · Wyoming County · (570) 836-5166
124 certified beds, about 66 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395433 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 30, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 57 health citations since January 2024, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $149,772 in the last three years; the largest was $92,498, and the latest is dated January 30, 2026.
54.4% 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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure that a licensed nurse assessed, monitored, and documented a resident's condition following an unwitnessed incident for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, review of a facility policy, information submitted by the facility to the state agency, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and ensure planned safety interventions were effectively implemented to prevent a resident exiting the facility without staff awareness.for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policies, documentation provided by the facility, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors and failed to implement effective procedures to accurately identify residents prior to medication administration. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation when a nurse administered a narcotic medication (morphine sulfate) prescribed for Resident 50 to Resident 51, causing profound bradycardia (abnormally slow heart rate) requiring emergency transfer to the hospital and administration of naloxone (a medication that reverses the effects of opioid overdose) on two occasions. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility provided investigative documentation, select facility policies, applicable state professional nursing standards, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services in accordance with professional standards of practice, resulting in actual harm. The facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse correctly identified a resident prior to medication administration for one of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 51). The failure resulted in the resident receiving another resident's prescribed opioid medication, causing adverse clinical effects requiring emergency medical treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility policies and procedures, job descriptions, facility investigative documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to administer the facility in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing failed to ensure implementation, oversight, and enforcement of effective systems to support accurate resident identification prior to medication administration and resulted in Immediate Jeopardy when an opioid medication was administered to the wrong resident (Resident 51), requiring emergency medical intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure necessary resident-specific clinical information was communicated to the receiving health care provider at the time of an emergent transfer to the hospital for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, resident and staff interviews, and facility provided documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents who were dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) consistently received necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene and dignity for one resident out of 11 sampled residents (Residents 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the facility's abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy, information provided by the facility, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to report alleged violations of resident-to-resident abuse for two of 12 residents reviewed (Residents 1 and 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to timely identify changes in nutritional parameters, implement appropriate nutritional interventions, and notify the attending physician and the resident's responsible party of a significant weight loss for one of 12 sampled residents (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the statement of deficiencies from the survey ending January 30, 2026, it was determined the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to develop and implement corrective action plans to prevent continued quality deficiencies related to the facility's food and nutrition services department and implement effective plans to correct and prevent further quality deficiencies related to timely identification of changes in nutritional parameters, implementation of appropriate nutritional interventions, and notification of the attending physician and the resident's responsible party of a significant weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and a review of employee credentials, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the registered dietitian (RD) provided the required on-site oversight of the food and nutrition services department.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, employee personnel files and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to fully screen four employees out of five to ensure they were eligible for employment in a long term care nursing care facility. (Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director or designee participated in the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee meetings on a quarterly basis for two of four quarters (Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 of 2025).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and review of facility training and orientation records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all employees received required annual education on the facility's abuse prohibition policy and procedures.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy and clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident's comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised as needed to accurately reflect their current needs and services required for one of 23 residents sampled (Resident 45).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that nursing services met professional standards of quality according to the Pennsylvania Code Title 49, Professional and Vocational Standards, by failing to ensure Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were properly trained and validated as competent prior to administering intravenous (IV) medications through a central venous catheter for one of twenty-three residents reviewed (Resident 52).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents with limited mobility received the necessary services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings Include: Review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which include cerebral ischemia (a condition in which reduced blood flow to the brain limits oxygen and nutrients needed for brain function) and flaccid hemiplegia to the right dominant side (a condition where there is complete paralysis or weakness of the muscles on one side of the body). These conditions affected Resident 1's ability to move and use the right hand and arm. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to timely identify changes in nutritional parameters, implement appropriate nutritional interventions, and notify the attending physician and the resident's responsible party of a significant weight loss for one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures to maintain records of controlled drugs and ensure accurate drug administration for two out of the 23 residents sampled (Resident's 4 and 58).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the statement of deficiencies from the survey ending January 30, 2026, it was determined the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to develop and implement corrective action plans to prevent continued quality deficiencies related to the facility's food and nutrition services department and implement effective plans to correct and prevent further quality deficiencies related to timely identification of changes in nutritional parameters, implementation of appropriate nutritional interventions, and notification of the attending physician and the resident's responsible party of a significant weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident clinical records, facility policies, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one of ten sampled residents (Resident 1) was free of a significant medication error resulting in the administration of incorrect doses on multiple occasions.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident out of five sampled was free of chemical restraints used to most readily control the resident's behavior and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, select facility policy review, review of clinical records, and staff and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to consistently provide timely and necessary foot care for one of eight residents sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's surety bond, resident fund accounts, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the amount of the surety bond was sufficient to cover the total amount of resident funds held by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, a review of personnel files, employee credentials, and facility documentation it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient staff with the necessary skill set and competencies to ensure appropriate nutritional oversight for residents. The facility also failed to ensure that the full-time Director of Food and Nutrition Services, who was not a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional, received frequent consultations from a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, a review of the facility's 4-week menu cycle, and Food Committee meeting minutes, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the menu was periodically reviewed and updated to reflect reasonable consideration of resident food preferences, thereby failing to enhance meal variety for six out of 20 sampled residents (Residents 26, 42, 30, 59, 65, and 15).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy, resident staff interviews and direct observations, it was determined that the facility failed to routinely offer snacks to six of six residents interviewed (Residents 15, 26, 30, 42, 59, and 65).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documentation, it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively review and update its facility-wide assessment to ensure it accurately reflected the specific needs of its resident population and the personnel resources necessary to meet those needs for 24 of 71 residents. Findings Include: A review of the facility-wide assessment provided to the survey team on February 19, 2025, indicated that the facility had last reviewed its assessment on January 14, 2025. The document was intended to evaluate the specific and unique needs of the resident population, along with the available and accessible resources to meet those needs on a daily basis and during emergent situations. At the time of the survey ending March 21, 2025, the facility census was 71 residents, including 24 residents with a documented diagnosis of dementia. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide meal service in an environment that maintains each resident's dignity for two residents of 20 sampled residents (Residents 52 and 6).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a residents' comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised as needed to accurately reflect their current needs and services required by three of 20 residents sampled (Residents 25, 49, and 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's activities programming, clinical records, staff and resident interviews, and observations, it was determined the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the needs, interests, preferences, and functional abilities of its residents, including those diagnosed with dementia for six of six residents sampled (Residents 26, 42, 30, 59, 15, and 65).
Inspectors wroteBased on a 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 to ensure that licensed nurses properly evaluated and provided nursing care according to physician orders for 4 residents out of 20 residents sampled (Resident 12, 24, 42, 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the provision of pharmacy services necessary to assure the timely receipt and administration of physician-prescribed medications for two of twenty residents sampled (Residents 28 and 127). The facility also failed to maintain oversight of its medication dispensing system, including ensuring emergency medication availability and routine pharmacy audits.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility practices, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate dining space to accommodate the number of dependent residents requiring staff assistance during meals in one of two occupied resident units (Blue Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's abuse policy, investigative reports, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from misappropriation of property, specifically resident medications, for one of 20 sampled residents (Resident 28).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living consistently received showers as planned to maintain good personal hygiene for two of 20 residents sampled (Residents 30 and 65).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure documented evidence of clinical necessity for administration of an antibiotic drug for one resident (Resident CR1) out of 20 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
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 one resident (66) out of 20 sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement enhanced barrier infection control procedures for one resident out of the 20 residents sampled (Resident 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select resident investigative reports, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to consistently provide sufficient staff assistance and implement appropriate interventions based on individual resident needs to promote resident safety and prevent falls with serious injuries for one resident out of 7 sampled residents. (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and select incident reports, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide individualized resident care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent the development of an avoidable mucosal membrane pressure injury, with pain for one resident out of two sampled residents (Resident 23).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select incident reports and facility policy, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary supervision of a resident with known unsafe behaviors to prevent a fall resulting in serious injuries, a fracture left humeral head and fracture of the left nasal bone, for one out of 20 sampled residents (Resident 12).
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 in the food and nutrition services department and two of three resident pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a facility wide assessment that reflected the personnel and specific resources presently available and to identify those that are necessary to care for its current resident population.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain documentation and demonstrate evidence of its ongoing QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement - a framework utilized to guide an organization's performance improvement efforts) program.
Inspectors wroteBased on information provided by the facility, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to implement a quality assurance program to identify problems that are opportunities for improvement.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance Process Improvement (QAPI) Committee.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that essential equipment was in safe operating condition in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to afford a resident and their designated representative the right to participate in the development of the resident's plan of care for five residents out of five interviewed during a resident group interview (Residents 19, 30, 37, 61, and 73).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, the minutes from resident council meetings, grievance logs, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate timely action to resolve resident grievances raised at resident group meetings and keep the residents apprised of the status of the facility's decisions and efforts toward grievance resolution, including concerns expressed by five of the five residents interviewed during a resident council group interview (Residents 19, 30, 37, 61, and 73).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and safe resident environment on two of two occupied resident care units.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the minutes from Resident Council Meetings, scheduled facility mealtimes, and select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide snacks as desired by residents including 3 out of the 20 residents sampled (19, 30, and 37) and experiences reported by residents during a group interview (Residents 61 and 73).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medication was stored at the appropriate temperature according to manufacturer's directions in one of three medication storage rooms reviewed. (Blue Wing)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of facility's planned meal tickets, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate residents' food preferences, and provide foods planned for oral gratification for one resident of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 32).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the coordination of hospice services with facility services to meet the resident's needs on a daily basis for one out of 20 residents sampled (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and grievances lodged with the facility and and interviews with the facility, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to put forth sufficient efforts to promptly resolve continued resident complaints and grievances expressed during Resident Council meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's interested representative of the need to alter treatment as the result of the reoccurrence of a pressure sore for one resident out of 8 sampled (Resident CR1).
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on January 30, 2026.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 30, 2026 | Fine | $46,270 |
| December 30, 2024 | Fine | $11,004 |
| May 29, 2024 | Payment Denial | 21 days from September 12, 2024 |
| May 21, 2024 | Fine | $92,498 |
| May 21, 2024 | Payment Denial | 15 days from August 21, 2024 |
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) | not reported | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.4% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 36.4% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: The accuracy of the staffing data for this measure could not be validated by CMS.
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 3.20 on weekdays and 2.85 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.19 in April to June 2025 to 3.10 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 | 3.10 | 0.53 | 3.20 | 2.85 | 3.6% | 0 of 90 | 66 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.32 | 0.65 | 3.39 | 3.15 | 12.5% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.73 | 0.77 | 3.88 | 3.37 | 17.9% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.19 | 0.57 | 3.30 | 2.93 | 26.9% | 1 of 91 | 70 |
| 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 | 24.2 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.5 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.6 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.3 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Embassy of Tunkhannock's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (41.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.5% 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. 71 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 87 eligible stays.
6.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 45 eligible stays.
28.6% 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. 28 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. 46 residents counted.
4.3% 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. 46 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. 7 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 OF TUNKHANNOCK, 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 Revocable Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 50% | 06/01/2024 |
| Andrews, Heather | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/03/2021 | |
| Finn, Nicholas | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/03/2021 | |
| Linam, Kim | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/27/2023 | |
| Rasmussen-Jones, Holly | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/03/2021 | |
| Handler, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Rager, Kameron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Repchick, George | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Valenti, Samuel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Beverly Enterprises - Pennsylvania, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Beverly Enterprises LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Beverly Health and Rehabilitiation Services, Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Embassy Healthcare Holdings Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/19/2025 | |
| Embassy Healthcare Management Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Geary Property Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Rager, Kameron | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/19/2025 | |
| Valenti, Samuel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2024 |
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.