Home / Pennsylvania / Tamaqua
149 Lafayette Avenue, Tamaqua, PA 18252 · Schuylkill County · (570) 668-1775
150 certified beds, about 112 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395875 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 14, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since January 2024, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,355 in the last three years; the largest was $16,355, and the latest is dated July 1, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.23 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.54 of those hours.
64.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Cedar View Holdings, an affiliated group of 9 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, facility policies, facility investigative documentation, video surveillance, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible by failing to provide adequate supervision and implement effective interventions to prevent an avoidable elopement for one of 12 residents reviewed (Resident CR1). This deficient practice placed Resident CR1 and other residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) identified by the facility as being at risk for elopement in Immediate Jeopardy due to the likelihood of serious injury, serious harm, impairment, or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, select facility policies, job descriptions, facility-provided documentation, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility administration failed to effectively use available resources and provide the leadership, oversight, and coordination necessary to ensure residents attained or maintained their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure effective administrative oversight and implementation of systems to protect residents identified as being at risk for wandering or elopement. As a result, one of twelve residents identified by the facility as being at risk for wandering (Resident CR1) exited the building without staff knowledge or supervision and entered an unsafe environment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined 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.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living were provided showers as planned to maintain acceptable standards of personal hygiene for three of 26 residents sampled (Residents 5, 119, and 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policies, observations, and staff, resident, and family member interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses accurately administered prescribed medication for one of 26 residents sampled (Resident 5), failed to ensure consistent implementation of a physician-ordered therapeutic positioning device for one of 26 residents sampled (Resident 106), and failed to provide appropriate wound care, treatment, and monitoring for one of 26 residents sampled (Resident 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, facility staffing records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care, for eight out of 26 residents sampled (Residents 53, 76, 104, 87, 5, 119, 11, and 103).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to consistently implement infection prevention and control practices and failed to ensure that reusable medical equipment intended for oral use was stored in a manner that prevented contamination for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 16). The facility also failed to evaluate infection surveillance data to determine potential contributing factors and identify the need for corrective actions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan to address the identified medical and treatment needs of one out of 26 residents sampled (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently implement planned measures to prevent the development or worsening of pressure ulcers for one of 26 residents sampled (Resident 27).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility-provided investigative documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility did not demonstrate consistent reassessment and modification of care interventions for one of 26 residents sampled (Resident 72) following the identification of an injury risk during routine care.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility-provided documentation, and employee interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of resident medical records for two of 26 residents sampled (Residents 90 and 102).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, state professional nursing standards, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nursing services were provided in accordance with professional standards of quality by not ensuring licensed nurses accurately administered a prescribed medication within the physician-ordered parameters for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, pharmacy records and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regime was free from significant medication errors for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility's abuse policy, clinical records, and select investigative reports and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to assure that one resident (Resident 2) was free from sexual abuse/harassment perpetrated by another resident (Resident 1) and out of 9 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, facility investigative reports, clinical records and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate investigation into sexual abuse was completed for one resident out of 9 sampled (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's plan of correction from the survey ending July 24, 2025, the outcome of the activities of the facility's quality assurance committee, a review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to maintain compliance with nursing home regulations and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies for one of six residents reviewed related to ensuring residents are free from sexual abuse (Resident 3) perpetrated by another resident (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that written notice, including the reason for a room change, was provided to residents and/or their resident representatives prior to a facility-initiated room change for three of eight residents reviewed (Residents CR1, 3, and 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, medication error reports, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to follow physician's orders and assure that two residents out of eight reviewed were free of significant medication errors (Resident CR1 and Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility-initiated transfer notices, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide copies of written notice of facility-initiated hospital transfer notces for residents to a representative of the Office of the State Ombudsman for three out of 12 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 23, and 90).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and a review of nurse staffing data, it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to ensure timely and quality care for 5 of 28 residents sampled (Residents 11, 17, 25, 59, and 97), and failed to ensure adequate response times and care provision as reported by 3 of 6 residents interviewed during a group resident interview (Residents 7, 21, and 41).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to maintain residents' rights to privacy and confidentiality by placing health care information in a place compromising the resident's privacy for one out of the 28 residents sampled (Resident 205) and failed to ensure that mail was delivered unopened to one of the 28 residents interviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of two residents out of 28 sampled (Residents 101 and 102).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, clinical records, facility-provided documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide services in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to follow physician orders for wound treatments for one resident out of 28 residents reviewed. (Resident 255)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the ready availability of necessary emergency dialysis supplies for one of two residents reviewed who received hemodialysis (Resident 48).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, select facility policy, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the correct installation of bed rails was implemented for one out of the 28 residents sampled (Resident 33).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to ensure the timely acquisition and administration of a prescribed medication for one of 28 sampled residents (Resident 74).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of the facility's planned menus, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate individual food preferences, to the extent possible, to increase resident satisfaction with meals for residents, which included two residents out of the 28 residents sampled (Residents 11 and 60), as expressed by one out of six residents during a resident group interview (Resident 21).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the provision of adaptive dining equipment as prescribed to support safe eating for one of 28 sampled residents (Resident 59).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined 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.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy, clinical record review, 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 seven residents sampled (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and reports and clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate the implementation of ongoing QAPI programs, to include the use of systems for investigating and analyzing the root cause of adverse events as evidenced by one resident out of six sampled (Resident B1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review 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 as evidenced by four residents out of 18 sampled (Residents 3, 26, 40 and 79).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean and orderly environment in resident areas on two of two resident units (West and East Nursing Units).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide supplemental oxygen administration as ordered for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician orders for individual pain management regimens were followed for five of 18 residents reviewed for pain management (Resident 54, 86, 64, 17 and 190).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and controlled drug medication sheets, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate accounting of controlled medications for three of four residents sampled (Resident 64, 54, and 52).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, and test tray results it was determined that the facility failed to serve meals that are palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of the facility's planned menus and grievances submitted to the facility, and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide preferred food as planned and accommodate individual food preferences to the extent possible to increase satisfaction with meals for seven residents out of 18 sampled (Residents 40, 3, 28, 69, 45, and 19).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 17).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise the residents' comprehensive plan in response to a change in condition for two residents out of 18 reviewed (Resident 77 and 17).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately assess bowel and bladder function and implement individualized approaches to restore normal bowel and bladder function to the extent possible for one out of 18 sampled residents (Resident 86).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide person-centered care for one resident receiving hemodialysis services out of 18 sampled (Resident 80).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility reports and clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to assure that nursing staff possessed the necessary knowledge, competencies, and skill sets to provide care to meet a resident's individualized needs as identified in the resident's current plan of care for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 22).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an effective individualized person-centered plan to address a resident's dementia-related behavioral symptoms for one out of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 20).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accurate medication labeling for one of 18 residents sampled (Resident 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to timely obtain prescribed laboratory services for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 39).
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.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to afford a resident's designated representative the right to make health care decisions on the resident's behalf for one resident out of six sampled (Resident CR1).
19 fire safety citations on file: 6 on January 14, 2026, 5 on April 16, 2025, 1 on May 22, 2024, 7 on May 17, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 1, 2026 | Fine | $16,355 |
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) | 3.23 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.54 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.99 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.99 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.70 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 64.9% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 41.7% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.78 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.33 on weekdays and 2.99 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 16.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.22 in April to June 2025 to 3.23 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 | 3.23 | 0.54 | 3.33 | 2.99 | 16.2% | 0 of 90 | 112 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.25 | 0.57 | 3.34 | 3.03 | 15.0% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.52 | 3.54 | 3.15 | 24.9% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.22 | 0.53 | 3.35 | 2.90 | 18.1% | 0 of 91 | 105 |
| 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 | 14.0 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.7 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.1 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Greenwood Center for Nursing and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.8% 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. 185 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 173 eligible stays.
10.1% 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. 138 eligible stays.
53.4% 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. 103 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. 141 residents counted.
4.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 141 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 54 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: GREENWOOD CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHAB LLC. CMS links this home to Cedar View Holdings, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 1.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apostrophe Opco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/31/2023 |
| Cedar View Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Cedar View Tr | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Samara Family Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Leiser, Asher | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/31/2023 | |
| Sebbag, Gabriel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/31/2023 | |
| Sebbag, Gabriel | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2023 | |
| Sebbag, Gabriel | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/31/2023 | |
| Clinical Consulting Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Priority Care Group LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Summation Financial Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Neill, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Yavorchak, Melissa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| 149 Lafayette Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/31/2023 | |
| Clinical Consulting Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/09/2025 | |
| Summation Financial Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Neill, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/12/2025 | |
| Yavorchak, Melissa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 |
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.