Home / Pennsylvania / North Huntingdon
249 Maus Drive, North Huntingdon, PA 15642 · Westmoreland County · (724) 863-4374
120 certified beds, about 115 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395382 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 19, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
None of its 52 health citations since November 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.17 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.51 of those hours.
65.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Kadima Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 14 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 facility policy, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation to identify the extent of potential abuse for 12 of 13 residents(Residents R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11 and R12) and failed to properly identify abuse for one of 13 residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the resident council minutes, the grievance logs, resident group meeting information, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food that was palatable, attractive and resident preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the resident council minutes, the grievance logs, the facility posted meal delivery schedule, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide at least three meals daily, at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with resident needs, preferences, requests, and plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the dish machine was in proper working order in the Main Kitchen, the stove was properly heating and that the steam table had a draining system in place that did not have a potential to cause contamination of food and food service equipment due to drainage pipe touching the ground and actual placement within a drain to sewage system.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to respond to resident concerns and grievances identified during council meetings and review of 5 of 6 months no grievance resolutions.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documents and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to document, resolve, and provide responses to residents and/or their responsible party regarding concerns for 16 of 18 grievances from July 2025 through November 2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident and staff interviews, and grievance review, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of 8 of 13 residents (Residents R2, R3, R5, R11, R14, R29, R500, R501).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean homelike environment for one of two resident shower rooms (A wing shower room). Findings Include:During an observation on 12/16/25 at 11:24 a.m., the following was identified:Resident shower room on the A wing nursing unit hall had broken floor trim exposing broken drywall leaving pieces of metal that had been lifted and bent. During an interview on 12/18/25 at 11:38 a.m., the Maintenance Director Employee E1 and the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for one of two shower rooms (A wing shower room).28 Pa. code: 201.14 (a) Responsibility of licensee.28 Pa Code: 201.18 (e)(1)(2) Management. 28 Pa Code: 201.29 (a)(c)(d) Resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop care plans that included instructions to provide person centered care for one of three residents (Residents R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care for one of three residents (Resident R66).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medication and/or biologicals in one of two medication rooms (A Wing Medication Room).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that comprehensive Minimum Data Set Assessments were accurate and fully completed for one of eight residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical and facility record review, facility submitted documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a fall and an elopement for two of eight residents (Resident R1 and Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical procedures and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain medical records on each resident are complete and accurately documented for one of eight residents. (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from neglect for one of five residents (Resident R1). Based on review of facility policy, published documents, clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility the facility failed to protect residents from neglect for one of five residents (Resident R1). This was identified as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent falls for one of five residents (Resident R1). Based on review of published documents, clinical record review, facility provided documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent falls for one of five residents (Resident R1). This was identified as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility job descriptions, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that staff renewed their nurse aide registration to allow individuals to work as a nurse aide for one of five nurse aides (NA) reviewed (NA Employee E1). Based on review of facility provided documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to have updated certifications on file for one of five Nurse Aides (NA), which allowed NA Employee E1 to work without a current certification. Review of the facility documents provided indicated that nurse aides, Must possess an active Certified Nursing Assistant Certification; having successfully completed a State approved training program and necessary examination. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies and documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor equipment in the Main Kitchen creating the potential for food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to store medications in a safe and sanitary manner for one of three medication carts reviewed (A unit Long Hall, and B unit Short Hall).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, federal regulation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide transfer notices to representatives of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for 4 of 12 months (January 2024 through April 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS- assessments completed indicating a change in condition of a resident requiring change in care) assessment for one of three residents reviewed (Residents R97).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess, document, and notify physicians of increased and decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels for two of four residents reviewed (Residents R51 and R66).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain ongoing communication with the dialysis (a machine filters wastes, salts and fluid from your blood when your kidneys are no longer healthy enough to do this work adequately) center for one of four residents reviewed (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly store refrigerated medication in one of three medication carts observed (B unit Short Hall medication cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies and documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor food temperatures in the Main Kitchen creating the potential for food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and review of the Food Service Director's Job description, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified Food Service Director for six of six weeks (6/18/24 - 7/30/24).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that weight loss was identified and addressed and identify needs for increased nutrition for eight of eleven residents (Resident R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident observations and interviews, and grievance review, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of 11 of 18 residents (Resident R5, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, and R17).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, staff interviews, and the results of the previous and current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to implement a good faith attempt to correct quality deficiencies and make certain that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively six of six weeks (6/18/24 - 7/30/24).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, and review of the Food Service Director's Job description, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified Food Service Director for two of two months (April, May 2024 to current June 18, 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident observations and interviews, and grievance review, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of 13 of 16 residents (Resident R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, and R13).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility polices, documentation, review of Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) guidelines for Group A Streptococcus (GAS, bacteria commonly found in the throat and on the skin that can cause a variety of infections) infections, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations, and staff interviews, it was that the facility failed to respond to GAS infections in the facility for twelve of 15 residents (Resident R6, R11, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, and R22). Review of the PADOH document Overview for Long-Term Care Facilities: Invasive Group A Streptococcus (invasive GAS is an infection of group A strep in an area of the body generally considered sterile, such as blood, bone, spinal fluid, and internal body sites) updated August 2022, indicated: Group A Streptococcus (GAS) is a type of bacteria that can cause infection. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facilities four week cycle menu, observations, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide food products as listed on the menu for eight of eight residents on 12/27/23. (Resident R5, R6,R7, Resident R8, R9, R10, R11, R12 ).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly restrain facial hair and failed prevent cross contamination on the tray line in the Main Kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide in a manner that enhanced resident dignity during dining services for two of 11 residents (Resident R14 and R66).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (written instructions such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for six of the nine residents reviewed (Resident R4, R25, R39, R58, R63, R301). Findings Include: A review of the facility policy Advanced Directives last reviewed 11/30/2023, indicated the facility will comply with requirements relating to maintaining written policies and procedures regarding advance directives. These requirements include provisions to inform and provide written information to all adult residents concerning the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and formulate an advance directive. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean, homelike environment on three of three nursing units (A Wing, B Wing and C Wing) and in two of two shower rooms and outside of the facility near to back of the building at A wing back entrance and failed to provide a homelike environment for one of five residents (Resident R91)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, grievance forms and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that three of four residents (Residents R10, R16 and R38) were free from abuse by not identifying allegations of neglect as potential abuse and allowing staff to continue to care for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, grievance forms and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that three of four residents (Residents R10, R16 and R38) allegations of abuse/neglect were thoroughly investigated and/or reported to the State Agencies as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that MDS assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for two of eight residents (Resident R32 and Resident R54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans to meet resident care needs for three of eight residents (Residents R18, R54, and R90).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify physicians of increased and decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels and failed to assess residents for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood glucose), for seven of ten Residents (Residents R4, R10, R23, R25, R34, R47, and R54).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, review of grievances,observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient dietary staff to perform essential kitchen duties in the Main Kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident interviews, Resident Group meeting, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the residents with a palatable meal, and at an appetizing temperature for one of one lunch meal observed. (Lunch Meal on 12/18/23).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a nutritious snack before or at bedtime for three of three nursing units (A wing, B wing and C wing nursing units).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's admission agreement and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a neutral and fair arbitration process by ensuring both the resident or his or her representative, and the facility agree on the selection of a neutral arbitrator.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documents, personnel records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified social worker for one of two employees (Employee E3).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documents, observations, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents receive culturally sensitive care to maintain the highest level of psychosocial wellbeing for one of two non-English speaking residents (Resident R68).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly secure medication in a medication cart in one of six medication carts (A Long Hall).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Communication training to direct care facility staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label food products in the dry storage and freezer area and maintain sanitary conditions in the dish room which created the potential for cross contamination in the designated main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on federal code and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a qualified activites professional.
15 fire safety citations on file: 4 on December 19, 2025, 6 on January 31, 2025, 5 on December 21, 2023.
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) | 3.17 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.51 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.89 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.79 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 65.6% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 57.9% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.89 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 3.29 on weekdays and 2.89 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.33 in April to June 2025 to 3.17 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 | 3.17 | 0.51 | 3.29 | 2.89 | 2.4% | 0 of 90 | 115 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.09 | 0.56 | 3.18 | 2.86 | 8.3% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.17 | 0.50 | 3.32 | 2.80 | 9.0% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.33 | 0.48 | 3.50 | 2.91 | 22.0% | 0 of 91 | 110 |
| 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 | 22.0 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 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 | 18.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.5 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.1 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.8 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Kadima Rehabilitation & Nursing at Irwin's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 18 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 45 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 20 eligible stays.
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: 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. 18 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. 23 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 23 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. 6 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: IRWIN REHABILITATION & NURSING LLC. CMS links this home to Kadima Healthcare Group, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 1.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morris, Daniel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 11/01/2024 |
| Strauss, Jonathan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Kadima Healthcare Group Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2024 | |
| Pinnacle Healthcare Solutions Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2024 | |
| Lowden, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Naylor, Dalton | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Naylor, Diedre | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Schmeltz, Jennifer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Strauss, Jonathan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Irwin Realty Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2024 | |
| Kadima Healthcare Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2024 | |
| Pinnacle Healthcare Solutions Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2024 | |
| Lowden, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Naylor, Dalton | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Naylor, Diedre | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Romeo, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Schmeltz, Jennifer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Strauss, Jonathan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Thimons, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.