Home / Pennsylvania / Berwick
801 East 16th Street, Berwick, PA 18603 · Columbia County · (570) 759-5400
240 certified beds, about 198 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395421 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 27, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since December 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $260,715 in the last three years; the largest was $260,715, and the latest is dated December 8, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.58 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.42 of those hours.
52.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Prestige Healthcare Administrative Services, an affiliated group of 15 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 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, hospital records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that care provided during the removal and replacement of an indwelling Foley catheter was documented in accordance with facility policy and professional standards of practice for one of three residents reviewed (Resident A1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of quality by failing to ensure that licensed nurses accurately administered prescribed medication for one resident (Resident 7) and by failing to ensure the consistent implementation of a physician-ordered therapeutic positioning device for one resident (Resident 4), for two of 36 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of resident pantry areas and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain equipment and environmental surfaces in a clean and sanitary condition in areas used for food and ice service to prevent the potential for microbial growth in food and beverages, increasing the risk of foodborne illness and waterborne pathogens in four of four resident pantry areas (East, North, Spruce and [NAME] pantries).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined 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 one resident out of 36 sampled residents (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, clinical records, resident observation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 199).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of pre-admission records, facility clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan that documented interim, person-centered approaches to address the resident's identified fall risk for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, investigative documentation provided by the facility, select facility policy, manufacturer guidelines, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure appropriate prevention and management of a pressure injury for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to consistently provide restorative nursing services as planned to maintain mobility to the extent possible for one resident out of 36 residents sampled (Resident 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary antibiotics for one out of 36 residents sampled (Resident 141).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, resident council meeting minutes, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance, including experiences reported by three residents out of 35 residents sampled (Residents 47, 48, and 140) and five out of nine residents interviewed during a resident group interview (Residents 10, 31, 49, 72, and 142).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and controlled drug records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate accounting and administration of controlled medications for two of 35 residents sampled (Residents 64 and 92).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments accurately reflected the status of two residents out of 35 sampled (Residents 2 and 183).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address a resident's involuntary movements for one out of five residents sampled for unnecessary medication (Resident 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to consistently administer Oxygen (O2) as ordered for one out of 35 sampled residents (Resident 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to timely follow up with required dental services for one Medicaid payor source resident out of 35 residents sampled (Resident 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to offer and/or provide the influenza immunization, unless the immunization was medically contraindicated or the resident had already been immunized, for one out of the five residents sampled (Resident 58).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy and incident reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement adequate safety measures, including sufficient staff supervision, for a resident identified as at high risk for falls to prevent falls for one resident out of 35 sampled (Resident 115).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, select investigative reports and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the failed to ensure the provision of care and services necessary to prevent a fall and maintain the physical health of one resident (Resident B1) out of two residents reviewed
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and/or implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan for three residents out of 35 sampled (Resident 103, 58, and 404).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to administer medication timely in accordance with physician's orders for one resident out of 35 sampled (Resident 161).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents receive appropriate services and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence for two out of 35 residents sampled (Residents 145 and 180).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident was free from physical abuse out of 9 sampled residents (Resident C1). Findings including A review of the current facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, last reviewed by the facility February 7, 2024, revealed that it is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. Physical Abuse includes, but is not limited to hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to fully develop and implement an abuse prohibition policy with corresponding written procedures to assure staff carry out the tasks necessary to fulfill required components for abuse prevention.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility policy and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide pharmacy services to assure consistent availability of routine prescribed pharmaceuticals and medications for four of nine residents reviewed (Residents B3, B4, B5, and C4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the statement of deficiencies from the surveys ending February 6, 2024, and February 28, 2024, and the activities of facility's quality assurance committee and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement effective plans to correct quality deficiencies in pharmacy services, timely obtaining resident medications, and accurate clinical records to ensure that corrective action plans designed to improve the delivery of care and services were consistently implemented to correct and deter future quality deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely develop and implement a person-centered care plan to meet one resident's current needs for the use of an implantable cardiac devices for one of nine sampled residents (Resident B1). Findings including: Clinical record review revealed that Resident B1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include A-V block (atrioventricular block (AV block) is a disease of the electrical conduction system of the heart in which electrical impulses conduct from the cardiac atria to the ventricles through the atrioventricular node (AV node) more slowly than [NAME] and heart disease), implantable cardiac pacemaker and hypertensive chronic kidney disease with heart failure. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select investigative reports and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete clinical records, according to professional standards of practice for one of nine sampled residents (Resident A1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and a review of employee personnel records it was determined that the facility failed to provide abuse prevention training to one employee out of five reviewed. (Employee 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly post daily nursing time.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of grievances lodged with the facility and select facility policy and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate timely and adequate efforts to resolve resident grievances for two residents out of 16 sampled. (Resident 2 and 11)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely care and necessary resident care supplies for effective incontinence management for one resident out of 16 sampled (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility policy and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to implement pharmacy procedures to consistent availability of routine prescribed medications for one of 16 residents reviewed (Resident 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to expiration dates on pharmacy products stored in the central supply room.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide residents dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living, the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene by failing to provide showers as scheduled for one resident out of 16 residents sampled (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store resident care supplies in a sanitary environment and manner in the central supply room.
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 on two of four resident pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner and environment that promotes each resident's quality of life and respect for each resident's dignity and individuality by failing to respond to timely to residents requests for assistance as reported by four residents (Residents 84, 104,176 and 181), timely return a resident's personal clothing for one resident (Resident 182), conduct a dignified dining experience as evidenced by one resident observed (Resident 81), and failed distribute or post menus to afford residents the right to review planned meals to enhance their quality of life as reported by two residents (Resident 172 and 84) out of 27 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping services to maintain a clean environment on two of four nursing units (Spruce Unit and [NAME] Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide and/or efficiently deploy sufficient nursing staff to consistently provide timely quality of care, services, and supervision necessary to maintain the physical and mental well-being of the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's plan of correction from the survey of December 8, 2023, and the findings of the revisit survey ending February 6, 2024, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to develop and implement corrective action plans to prevent continued quality deficiencies related to abuse and acceptable practices for the storage and service of food and to ensure that plans designed to improve the delivery of care and services were consistently implemented to effectively deter future quality deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to afford a resident the right to make choices regarding their preferences for daily routines, choice of daily clothing, for one resident out of 27 sampled (Resident 137).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, information submitted by the facility, and select investigative reports and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation into an allegation of physical abuse and report the results of the investigation to the State Survey Agency within 5 working days of the incident for one resident out of 25 sampled (Resident 81).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure that licensed and professional nurses thoroughly assessed resident status and provided the nursing care required by two residents out of 27 sampled (Resident 181).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and clinical records, resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for oxygen therapy prescribed for one resident out 27 sampled (Resident 182).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, test tray results, a review of minutes from the facility's food committee meeting, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to serve food and beverages at palatable and appetizing temperatures on one of four nursing units (East Wing).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select investigative reports and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete clinical records, according to professional standards of practice for one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 93).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's abuse policy, clinical records and select investigative reports and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident (Resident 26) out of 35 sampled was free from physical abuse perpetrated by another resident (Resident 24), which caused Resident 26 to fall and sustain a traumatic hematoma to the forehead and facial bruising.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and investigative reports, observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary staff set-up and positioning assistance with eating as required by a resident to prevent an accident while eating resulting in a second degree burn for one (Resident 132) out of 35 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of grievances lodged with the facility and the minutes from Residents' Council meetings and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner and environment that promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance, including experiences reported by seven alert and oriented residents out of 11 residents interviewed during a group meeting (Residents 9, 53, 57, 85, 123, 165, and 147).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select incident reports and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to fully develop and implement person-centered comprehensive care plans to meet the individualized toileting and safety needs of two residents (Residents 161 and 278) out of 35 sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of select facility policies, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean, orderly, comfortable, and homelike environment in resident rooms on two of the 10 resident units (E Hall and [NAME] Hall Nursing Units) and failed to allow one resident out of 11 interviewed to use his personal belongings (Resident 123).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's abuse policy, clinical records, information submitted by the facility, and select investigative reports and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation into an allegation of physical abuse and report the results of the investigation to the State Survey Agency within 5 working days of the incident for one resident out of 25 sampled (Resident 26).
20 fire safety citations on file: 5 on February 27, 2026, 8 on March 21, 2025, 7 on October 25, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 8, 2023 | Fine | $260,715 |
| December 8, 2023 | Payment Denial | 109 days from January 19, 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) | 3.58 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.42 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.25 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.37 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.0% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.83 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 3.71 on weekdays and 3.25 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 8.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.63 in April to June 2025 to 3.58 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 | 3.58 | 0.42 | 3.71 | 3.25 | 8.8% | 0 of 90 | 198 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.53 | 0.41 | 3.59 | 3.39 | 14.2% | 0 of 92 | 191 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.58 | 0.39 | 3.65 | 3.39 | 16.9% | 0 of 92 | 190 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.63 | 0.47 | 3.74 | 3.35 | 22.8% | 0 of 91 | 194 |
| 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 | 14.9 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.1 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.9 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Glen Brook Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.8% 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. 155 eligible stays.
10.0% 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. 176 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. 119 eligible stays.
61.1% 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. 157 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 213 residents counted.
3.1% 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. 213 residents counted.
98.7% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 74 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: GLEN BROOK REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Prestige Healthcare Administrative Services, a group of 15 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gbrh Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/01/2021 |
| Stern, Moshe | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 98% | 11/01/2021 |
| Stern, Moshe | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2021 | |
| Matelevich, Susan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2021 |
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.