Home / Pennsylvania / Camp Hill
770 Poplar Church Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 · Cumberland County · (717) 763-7070
309 certified beds, about 192 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395223 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 7, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 56 health citations since September 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $58,069 in the last three years; the largest was $23,491, and the latest is dated June 1, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.16 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.68 of those hours.
36.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Priority Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 12 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 56 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility document review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance by failing to implement interventions, supervision, and effective safety measures to prevent elopement of a resident identified as being at risk for elopement and exhibiting exit seeking behaviors (Resident 1). This failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy situation. Review of facility policy, titled Elopement, revised June 2023, read, in part, It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe and secure environment for our residents and to be proactive in preventing resident elopement. Residents at risk for elopement will be appropriately monitored to reduce the potential for injury. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility investigation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past noncompliance in its failure to ensure that abnormal test results were acted upon timely and in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of eight residents reviewed (Resident 6).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and home-like environment on 5 nursing units, the 2nd floor and the main facility hallway.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents and staff for one out of three floors (2nd floor unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of facility investigation documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance by failing to provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement of a resident identified as being at risk for elopement (Resident 3). Resident 3 was found in the street approximately 0.3 miles away from the facility. This failure placed a total of eight additional residents in an Immediate Jeopardy situation who were identified as at risk for elopement and not on a locked unit (Residents 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). Findings Include:Review of facility policy, titled Elopement, revised June 2023, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe and secure environment for our residents and to be proactive in preventing resident elopement. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of select facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident the right to be free from neglect, which resulted in actual harm as evidenced by superficial incontinence associated dermatitis for one out of three residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, facility document review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete clinical records for one of 14 residents reviewed (Resident 3). Findings Include:Review of facility policy, titled Elopement, revised June 2023, revealed, Post Elopement/upon return to the facility, the Director of Nursing Services or Charge Nurse shall: complete and file an Incident Report; and Document the event in the resident's medical record. Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver (advanced, irreversible scarring of the liver caused by long-term heavy alcohol consumption, often resulting in liver failure), hepatic encephalopathy (a serious condition that occurs when the liver is unable to filter toxins from the blood. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and home-like environment in one of three shower rooms observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident status for three of 35 residents reviewed (Residents 5, 51, and 85).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the resident plan of care for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record reviews, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services are provided in accordance with professional standards of practice that will meet each resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for four of 35 residents reviewed (Residents 43, 82, 128, and 141).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were acted on appropriately for two of 35 residents reviewed (Residents 25 and 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of safety data sheet, review of facility temperature logs, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to utilize kitchen equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the environment meets the individual needs of each resident by ensuring the call system is within reach of the resident for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 155).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for one of seven residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion and mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve range of motion or mobility for one of one residents reviewed (Resident 17).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 11 of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 6, 7, 17, 43, 67, 74, 80, 83, 85, 109, and 142).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, resident observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised for seven of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 7, 80, 85, 96, 124, 142, and 171), and failed to give the opportunity to participate in the development, review, and revision of his/her care plan for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 61).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dialysis receive such services consistent with professional standards and failed to maintain complete and accurate records related to dialysis communication for one of two residents reviewed for dialysis (Resident 158).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility personnel documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nurse aide performance evaluations were completed at least annually for four of five nurse aides reviewed (Employees 11, 12, 13, and 15). Findings Include: Review of personnel information revealed that Employee 11's hire date was August 20, 2001; Employee 12's hire date was November 28, 2005; Employee 13's hire date was April 7, 2010; and Employee 15's hire date was January 11, 2022. Further review of personnel information for Employees 11, 12, 13, and 15, failed to reveal that annual performance reviews were completed. During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on September 26, 2024, at 12:35 PM, he acknowledged that he had no additional documentation to provide for the selected employees. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and utilize equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen and five of five pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment that supports infection prevention and control for three of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 15, 32, and 171).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel training records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each nurse aide was provided with the required in-service training consisting of no less than 12 hours per year and included dementia management training and resident abuse prevention training for three of five nurse aide employee records reviewed (Employees 11, 12, and 13). Findings Include: Review of personnel information revealed that Employee 11's hire date was August 20, 2001; Employee 12's hire date was November 28, 2005; and Employee 13's hire date was April 7, 2010. Review of facility training records failed to reveal that the aforementioned Employees completed 12 hours of required annual training in the past 12 months, or that they had completed dementia management training and resident abuse prevention training in the past 12 months. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement resident-directed care and treatment consistent with the resident's physician orders and plan of care for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 142).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection for one of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident 74).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility investigation documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 63). Findings Include: Review of Resident 63's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (a mental health condition that is marked by a mix of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions, and mood disorder symptoms, such as depression, and mania), abnormal posture, and muscle weakness. Review of select facility report detailing the incident that occurred on June 27, 2024, read, in part: Incident Description: Nursing Description: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of 38 residents reviewed were monitored for acceptable parameters of weight (Resident 124). Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled Weight Assessment and Intervention, last reviewed August 21, 2024, revealed: The nursing staff will measure resident weight on admission, and then weekly for four weeks. If no weight concerns are noted at this point, weights will be measured monthly thereafter or as per Dietician or MD. A review of the clinical record for Resident 124 revealed diagnoses that included psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality) and dementia (irreversible, progressive degenerative disease of the brain, resulting in loss of reality contact and functioning ability). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for one out of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 43).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review, policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable accurate accounting of controlled drugs when acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and or administering to identify possible diversion for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 177).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 96).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a safe, comfortable, homelike interior on one of five nursing units observed (1300 unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services are provided in accordance with professional standards of practice that will meet each resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection of a pressure ulcer for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings Include: Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included unstageable pressure ulcer of the sacral region (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, document review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide suprapubic catheter care and monitoring, which resulted in actual harm, as evidenced by an active infection requiring antibiotic treatment. The facility also failed to promptly initiate urology specialist recommendations for treatment of the infection for one of two residents reviewed for catheter use (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, policies and procedures, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed ensure the resident received care, consistent with professional standards, to prevent pressure ulcers for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled Dressing, Dry/Clean, revised September 2013, revealed, Steps in the Procedure 1. Clean bedside stand. Establish a clean field. 2. Place the clean equipment on the clean field. Arrange the supplies so they can be easily reached. 3. Tape a biohazard or plastic bag on the bedside stand or use a waste basket below clean field. 4. Position resident and adjust clothing to provide access to affected area. 5. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 6. Put on clean gloves. Loosen tape and remove soiled dressing. 7. Pull glove over dressing and discard into plastic or biohazard bag. 8. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and home-like environment in four resident rooms (Residents' 2, 3, 4, and 5 rooms).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record reviews, resident rights, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to offer the option to formulate an advanced directive and provided no documentation pertaining to resident's choices for advanced directives, or documenting how the resident was informed of his/her right to develop a living will or advanced directive, for three of 38 records reviewed; and failed to document the correct code status on the care plan to match the POLST (Pennsylvania Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) for one of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 40, 54, 72, and 88).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for six of 39 residents reviewed (Resident 4, 72, 77, 138, 143, and 151). Findings Include: Review of Resident 4's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included Multiple sclerosis (a disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). Review of Resident 4's MDS (Minimum Data Set is part of the federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes) dated August 21, 2023, revealed that section M0150. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the resident plan of care for four of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 22, 59, 69, and 72).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living for dependent residents for six of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 15, 17, 55, 69, 88, and 94).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Medication Regimen Reviews were completed by a consultant pharmacist and responded to in a timely manner by the attending physician or prescriber for four of 39 residents reviewed (Residents 72, 77, 88, and 96).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary antipsychotic medication for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident 143).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, policy review, observations, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection control practices to prevent the transmission of infectious disease for one of one resident reviewed for transmission based precautions (Resident 105); failed to maintain a data collection system of surveillance for three of 12 months reviewed (December 2022, January 2023, and April 2023); and failed to maintain an effective infection control program related to the preparation and administration of medications to one of three Residents observed (Resident 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for five of 38 residents observed (Residents 14, 114, 137, 138, and 223).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, review of facility incident report, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation to rule out abuse, neglect, or mistreatment following an unwitnessed fall for one of 12 residents reviewed for falls (Resident 138). Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled Abuse Policy with last review date of September 23, 2023, revealed, The Facility shall have processes in place to include screening, training, prevention, identification, protection, investigation, reporting and response to allegations of potential or actual abuse and neglect. The policy defined neglect as the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a significant change assessment (change to hospice status) was completed for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 18).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 88). Findings Include: Review of Resident 88's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease (build-up of cholesterol plaques in the walls of the arteries causing obstruction of blood flow) and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in things). Review of Resident 88's physician orders revealed an order for Metoprolol Tartrate Tablet 50 MG, Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to essential hypertension, Do not crush; Hold for Systolic Blood Presure <120 Give with food or immediately after meal, with a start date of July 21, 2023. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services to promote healing and prevent worsening of pressure ulcers for one of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident 143).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to answer a dietary consult in response to weight loss to maintain adequate nutritional status for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 88).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for one of 39 residents reviewed (Resident 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free from a medication error rate of five percent or greater based on two medication errors out of 31 opportunities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure documentation of controlled medication disposition and reason for one of three closed records reviewed (Resident 168).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine and emergency dental services for one of 39 residents (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services to heal and prevent infection of pressure ulcers for two of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents 1 and 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided a written notice of his or her rights and services provided, as well as all rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during their stay in the facility prior to or upon admission for three of six residents reviewed (Residents 1, 4, and 6).
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on May 28, 2026.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 1, 2026 | Fine | $16,355 |
| February 9, 2026 | Fine | $9,110 |
| February 9, 2026 | Fine | $9,113 |
| February 22, 2024 | Fine | $23,491 |
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) | 3.16 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.87 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.54 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.6% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 34.6% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.24 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 3.28 on weekdays and 2.87 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.29 in April to June 2025 to 3.16 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 | 3.16 | 0.68 | 3.28 | 2.87 | 5.3% | 0 of 90 | 192 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.22 | 0.69 | 3.30 | 3.00 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 183 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.12 | 0.63 | 3.25 | 2.79 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 184 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.29 | 0.63 | 3.41 | 3.01 | 4.5% | 0 of 91 | 182 |
| 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 | 5.1 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.7 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.5 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.9 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Gardens at West Shore, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (37.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
37.2% 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. 75 eligible stays.
12.4% 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. 85 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 36 eligible stays.
36.4% 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. 33 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 43 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 43 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. 9 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: THE MEADOWS AT WEST SHORE FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION LLC. CMS links this home to Priority Healthcare Group, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hashtag Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/01/2017 |
| Blglpa LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 14% | 10/27/2017 |
| Fair Oaks Family Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 14% | 01/28/2020 |
| Hashtag-El-Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 17% | 10/27/2017 |
| Samara Holdings Company LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 17% | 01/28/2020 |
| Strawberry Hill Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 17% | 01/28/2020 |
| Sebbag, Gabriel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 10/27/2017 |
| Schiowitz, Marc | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Clinical Consulting Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2019 | |
| Priority Care Group LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2019 | |
| Summation Financial Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2019 | |
| Baughman, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/13/2024 | |
| Schiowitz, Marc | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Tarique, Ahmed | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2020 | |
| Gamzeh, David | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/04/2025 | |
| Glatzer, Akiva | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/17/2025 | |
| Greatorex, Tina | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/04/2025 | |
| Clinical Consulting Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/04/2025 | |
| Gph Camp Hill West Shore LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/01/2017 | |
| Priority Care Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/17/2025 | |
| Summation Financial Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/04/2025 | |
| Baughman, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/13/2024 | |
| Schiowitz, Marc | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Tarique, Ahmed | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2020 |
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.