Home / Pennsylvania / Chambersburg
201 Franklin Farm Lane, Chambersburg, PA 17201 · Franklin County · (717) 264-2715
186 certified beds, about 177 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395613 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 20, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since December 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $211,205 in the last three years; the largest was $211,205, and the latest is dated October 18, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.31 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.44 of those hours.
46.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
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 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice that meet each resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for three of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 5, 13, and 135).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, facility provided documentation review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care/oxygen services consistent with professional standards of practice for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, review of select facility temperature logs, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to utilize equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the RAI manual (Resident Assessment Instrument- A standardized guide used in nursing homes and long-term care facilities to assess residents health, functional status, and care needs), clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one of 33 residents reviewed (Residents 78).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice for two of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents 78 and 139).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff implement transmission-based precautions to prevent the spread of infection for two of three residents observed (Residents 72 and 164). Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled Isolation- Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, revised October 2018, revealed in a section labeled, Contact Precautions, staff and visitors will wear gloves (clean, non-sterile) when entering the room and staff and visitors will wear a disposable gown upon entering the room and remove before leaving the room. Further review of this policy revealed that for residents requiring droplet precautions staff are expected to wear masks, gloves, gown, and goggles when entering the residents room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance in its failure to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident for three of seven residents reviewed (Resident 1, 4, and 7), which resulted in actual harm as evidenced by a right elbow fracture and laceration for one of seven residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings Include:Review of facility policy, titled Pharmscript Provider Pharmacy Requirements, last revised August 2020, read, in part, Procedures: 4. f. Providing routine and timely pharmacy service as contracted, as well as emergency pharmacy service 24 hours per day, seven days per week. New medication orders are available for administration on the next routine delivery, unless otherwise requested by facility staff. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, and facility documentation review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide comfortable temperatures on two of five nursing units (E and F) and failed to provide a clean homelike environment in one of 34 rooms observed (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy review, clinical record reviews, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain adequate personal hygiene and grooming of residents dependent on staff for assistance with these activities of daily living for two of 34 residents reviewed (Residents 79 and 149).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement resident-directed care and treatment consistent with the resident's physician orders and plan of care for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 25).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dialysis receive such services consistent with professional standards of practice for two of two residents reviewed for dialysis (Residents 16 and 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility temperature logs, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to utilize kitchen equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of grievances, and interviews with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided in a manner that enhanced resident dignity for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 130).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to convey resident's funds within 30 days, and a final accounting of those funds to the resident upon discharge for one of three resident closed records reviewed (Resident 179).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, facility documentation review, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a timely response was provided to a resident following submission of a grievance for one of two residents reviewed for grievances (Resident 168).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and interviews with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from mental abuse and neglect for two of 34 residents (Residents 21 and 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for three of 34 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 4, and 171).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one of two residents reviewed for range of motion (Resident 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, medication information review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that was free form unnecessary medications for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility grievances, review of the menu, completion of one meal test tray, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide foods that are palatable and at an appetizing temperatures at one of one meal observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility documentation, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received food that accommodated their preferences for two of two residents reviewed for meal accuracy (Residents 102 and 104).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, hospital record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided after a change in condition for one of 20 residents reviewed (Resident 1). This failure resulted in continued decline, which required hospitalization for septic shock (a widespread infection causing organ failure and dangerously low blood pressure) and death. This failure placed an additional 10 out of 20 residents reviewed who were identified as having a change in condition in an immediate jeopardy situation (Residents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, closed clinical record, resident account statement and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to convey resident account balance in accordance with State law and closed accounts upon discharge in a timely manner for one of 2 closed resident records, Resident 12.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for four of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 17, 100, 117, and 131).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised for four of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 45, 88, and 131).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for three of 37 residents reviewed (Residents 11, 117, and 326). Findings Include: Review of Resident 11's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (ESRD-condition in which a person's kidneys cease functioning on a permanent basis), muscle weakness, and obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep-related breathing disorder that causes repeated disruptions in breathing during sleep). Review of Resident 11's physician orders revealed an order for Dialysis Precautions: No blood draws/ injections/ blood pressure from right arm. Emergency kit at bedside containing appropriate equipment, with a start date of July 4, 2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed ensure failed to ensure effects and side effects of psychotropic medications was being monitored for three of five residents reviewed (Resident 67, 100, and 131).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of select facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to utilize equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain a data collection system of surveillance for three of 12 months reviewed (October 2023; November 2023; and December 2023).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident needs were accommodated regarding call bell accessibility for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, state regulation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS - standardized assessment tool utilized to identify a resident's physical, mental and psychosocial needs) for one of two residents reviewed for Hospice (Resident 23).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper monitoring of fluid restrictions for two of eight residents reviewed for nutrition/hydration needs (Residents 3 and 117).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, policy review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to document completely and accurately on the clinical records for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a closed record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to assist the resident in obtaining and emergency dental services for one of 15 residents reviewed (Resident 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a significant change assessment was completed for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, policy review, and facility investigation, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent potential accidents/hazards for controlled substances for one nursing unit (B Wing) and a wandering resident (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility investigation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow procedures to secure controlled medications on one of five nursing units (B Wing).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for one of 3 residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, COVID-19 Infection Control Protocols to Minimize Exposure, with an annual review in 2023, For residents going to medical appointments, regular communication between the medical facility and the nursing home (in both directions) is essential to help identify residents with potential exposures or symptoms of COVID-19 before they enter the facility so that proper precautions can be implemented. [...]
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 18, 2024 | Fine | $211,205 |
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) | 3.31 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.44 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.09 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.01 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.86 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.6% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.6% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.81 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 3.40 on weekdays and 3.09 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.27 in April to June 2025 to 3.31 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 | 3.31 | 0.44 | 3.40 | 3.09 | 1.9% | 0 of 90 | 177 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.24 | 0.39 | 3.35 | 2.95 | 2.3% | 0 of 92 | 175 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.29 | 0.44 | 3.41 | 2.99 | 5.7% | 0 of 92 | 173 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.27 | 0.41 | 3.41 | 2.95 | 6.2% | 0 of 91 | 170 |
| 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 | 11.1 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.1 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 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 | 26.8 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.7 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Laurel Lakes Rehabilitation and Wellness Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (31.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
31.4% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 209 eligible stays.
12.0% 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. 247 eligible stays.
6.2% 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. 162 eligible stays.
48.5% 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. 196 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 293 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 293 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. 72 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: FRANKLIN CENTER OPCO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenzweig, Steven | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 98% | 08/01/2019 |
| Mandel, Avital | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/01/2019 | |
| Holtry, Randy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Rosenzweig, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2019 | |
| Holtry, Randy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/24/2025 |
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.