Home / Pennsylvania / Indiana
1155 Indian Springs Road, Indiana, PA 15701 · Indiana County · (724) 464-1600
96 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1982
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395568 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 25, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since May 2024, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.64 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.62 of those hours.
37.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Presbyterian Senior Living, an affiliated group of 11 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care for pressure ulcers in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to ensure that recommendations from a wound consultant were reviewed with the attending physician and treatments for pressure ulcers were provided as ordered by the physician for four of 30 residents reviewed (Resident 2, 45, 46, 58) who had pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was served under sanitary conditions, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dependent residents the necessary services to maintain nutritional status for one of 30 residents reviewed (Resident 45).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical record reviews, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were followed for two of 30 residents reviewed (Resident 3 and 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors for one of 30 residents reviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were stored in a secure manner and failed to provide a separately locked, permanently affixed compartment in the refrigerator for medication storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that laboratory services were obtained as ordered by the physician for one of 30 residents reviewed (Resident 43).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident received pneumococcal immunizations for one of 30 residents reviewed (Residents 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff wore appropriate hair coverings.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments for four of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 12, 18, 72, 81).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated/revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for two of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 27, 60).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accountability for controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) for two of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 42, 72).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly date medications after they were opened in two of three medication carts reviewed (Highlands 1 and Highlands 2), and failed to discard expired medical supplies in one of two medication rooms reviewed (Highlands).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's plans of correction for previous surveys, and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of established infection control guidelines, facility policy, and residents' clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines from the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to reduce the spread of infections and prevent cross-contamination for one of 33 residents reviewed (Resident 67).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, investigation reports, and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1) resulting in a fall with fractures. This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were followed, resulting in significant medication errors for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accountability for controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) for two of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 67, 80).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nutritional drinks in the medication room and pantry were not expired (Crossroads).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented for one of 37 residents reviewed (Resident 60).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to address and document the opportunity to formulate advance directives and failed to document in the resident's clinical record the resident's decision to accept or decline assistance to formulate advance directives for one of 37 residents reviewed (Resident 70).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, homelike environment for one of 37 residents reviewed (Resident 27).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse from a resident who wanders for one of 37 residents reviewed (Resident 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and legal guardian in writing regarding the reason for hospitalization for four of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 23, 36, 46, 67).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or the responsible party was notified about the facility's bed-hold policy upon transfer to the hospital for four of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 23, 36, 46, 67).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive admission Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required time frame for three of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 103, 104, 105).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for two of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 60, 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that baseline care plans included the information and instructions needed to provide person-centered care for two of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 25, 35).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care plans were updated to reflect changes in care needs for one of 37 residents reviewed (Resident 60).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders for medications were followed for two of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 62, 80).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain the required information from the contracted hospice provider for two of four hospice residents reviewed (Residents 8, 34).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's plans of correction for previous surveys, and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented for three of five residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, 5).
8 fire safety citations on file: 1 on June 25, 2026, 2 on June 5, 2025, 5 on July 11, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.64 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.62 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.39 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.05 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.5% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.64 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 3.74 on weekdays and 3.39 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.69 in April to June 2025 to 3.64 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 | 3.64 | 0.62 | 3.74 | 3.39 | 5.6% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.66 | 0.66 | 3.73 | 3.48 | 6.7% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.70 | 0.63 | 3.78 | 3.49 | 12.7% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.69 | 0.59 | 3.76 | 3.50 | 17.8% | 0 of 91 | 85 |
| 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 | 27.7 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 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 | 32.5 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.7 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Julia Pound Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (59.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.6% this home
Better 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. 146 eligible stays.
12.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 137 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 80 eligible stays.
59.6% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 52 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. 56 residents counted.
5.8% 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. 56 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. 15 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: PRESBYTERIAN HOMES INC.. CMS links this home to Presbyterian Senior Living, a group of 11 nursing homes averaging 3.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phi | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/30/2009 |
| Bowser, Nicole | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/01/2011 | |
| Vinette-Clay, Melissa | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/19/2010 | |
| Birdsall, James | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Chottiner, Lawrence | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Elliott, Brenda | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Goldstein, Terry | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2018 | |
| Kelly, Sharon | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2011 | |
| Kinard, Joseph | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2021 | |
| Paxton, Stuart | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Reimann, Susan | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Rhodes, Cheryl | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Scott, William | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Seibert, Joseph | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Shropshire, Jennifer | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2017 | |
| Stone, Robyn | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Davis, Danny | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/21/2018 | |
| Hoffman, Cynthia | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/02/2021 | |
| Kinard, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Krieger, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| McAlister, Dyan | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/17/2016 | |
| Reimann, Susan | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Wickline, Beverly | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2020 |
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.