Home / Pennsylvania / Scranton
100 Linwood Avenue, Scranton, PA 18505 · Lackawanna County · (570) 346-7381
102 certified beds, about 94 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1986
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395717 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 6, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since December 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $113,348 in the last three years; the largest was $113,348, and the latest is dated May 15, 2024.
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 61 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, clinical records, facility investigative documentation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one of 10 residents reviewed (Resident 1) remained free from emotional and psychosocial abuse, exploitation, and invasion of privacy when a staff member intentionally recorded the resident on a personal cellular telephone during toileting care and while the resident was using the toilet without the resident's knowledge or consent. This deficient practice resulted in actual psychosocial harm through humiliation, loss of dignity, and violation of the resident's privacy. This deficiency is cited as past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, facility investigative documentation, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of an allegation of abuse, neglect, and exploitation for one of 10 residents reviewed for (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, consultant pharmacist records, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the attending physician reviewed and responded to consultant pharmacist recommendations for one resident (Resident 2) reviewed for medication regimen review.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's planned cycle menus and menu substitution records, observation of meal service, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to follow the planned menu for residents who required a pureed consistency diet for 9 of 9 residents reviewed with physician-ordered pureed diets (Residents 18, 23, 28, 45, 47, 61, 81, 9, and 92).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, test tray evaluation, review of food committee minutes, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure foods were served at safe and palatable temperatures for residents for 1 test tray evaluated for one of 4 hallways and 2 of 2 residents (Residents 102 and 103) who voiced concerns related to food temperature and palatability.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included individualized and measurable interventions to address a resident's known behavioral needs for 1 of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 88).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that nursing services met professional standards of quality as required by the Pennsylvania Code Title 49, Professional and Vocational Standards, by failing to implement appropriate nursing practices for the administration of an intravenous (IV) medication via peripheral inserted central venous catheter (PICC) for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 102).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was administered consistent with professional standard of practice for one resident out of 19 sampled residents (Resident 43).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to follow its pain management policy and accepted standards of nursing practice by failing to attempt and document non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of pain medication prescribed on an as needed basis, failing to ensure the pain medication order included the specific pain indication or severity level, and failing to evaluate the effectiveness of administered pain medication using a numeric pain scale for 1 of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 102).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures to maintain records of controlled drugs and ensure accurate drug administration for one out of the 30 residents sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation of medications, manufacturer guidance, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were properly dated when opened and failed to discard a multi-dose medication after the manufacturer's recommended use-by period on one of four medication carts (300 hall, cart 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of employee personnel records, review of facility policies and procedures, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program to ensure licensed nursing staff possessed the knowledge and competencies necessary to safely manage a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC line) for 1 resident (Resident 102) of 16 residents reviewed who required care involving a PICC line.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free from potential accident hazards for one out of four nursing units observed (300 Hall), including observations made of one out of 14 residents' rooms (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring of behaviors and potential adverse consequences prior to administering psychoactive medications for one of 10 residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records and select facility documentation, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff implemented a physician-ordered adaptive device (lidded cup) to mitigate the risk of injury from hot liquids for one of 21 sampled residents (Resident 60) resulting in actual harm, a burn injury to the upper thigh area and failed to ensure nurse aides demonstrated the necessary skills and competencies to safely perform mechanical lift transfers for one of 21 residents reviewed (Resident 195). These failures resulted in actual harm to both residents.
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 dietary department.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to timely provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF-ABN) to notify one of three residents reviewed (Resident 95) that Medicare Part A coverage for skilled nursing services was ending. Findings Include: A review of Resident 95's clinical record revealed admission to the facility on December 9, 2024, with diagnoses to include fusion of the spine (a surgical procedure that connects two or more vertebrae in the spine to eliminate movement between them, providing stability and pain relief). Review of the resident's Medicare coverage documentation revealed the last day of covered Medicare Part A services was February 24, 2025. [...]
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 accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 21 sampled (Resident 72).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that is not possible, for one out of 21 residents sampled (Resident 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility-initiated transfer notices, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer in writing and in a language and manner they understand and to provide copies of written notice of facility-initiated hospital transfers of residents to a representative of the Office of the State Ombudsman for one out of 21 residents reviewed (Resident 72).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, information provided by the facility, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to promptly conduct a thorough investigation to rule out abuse and implement corrective action for one of 6 residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of facility documentation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the call bell system was adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance, by failing to ensure the call bell system was fully functional in three (100, 200 and 300) out of the four areas of the facility. The facility failed to identify the risks and safety of the residents who need to utilize their call bell for staff assistance placing the residents in an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to protect the personal privacy rights of three of 28 residents sampled (Resident A1, A2, and A3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a fall and promote resident safety for two of 28 sampled (Resident's B1 and A 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's plan of correction from the survey ending July 23, 2024, the outcome of the activities of the facility's quality assurance committee, observations and interviews it was determined the facility's procedures failed to effectively identify ongoing deficient practices related to personal privacy and infection control.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control tracking log and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain and implement a comprehensive program to monitor and prevent infections in the facility and failed to maintain infection control practices to prevent the spread of infections regarding foley catheter maintance for 1 of 28 sampled residents. (Resident 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, review of facility documentation and interviews with staff and residents it was determined the facility failed to efficiently deploy sufficient nursing staff to provide timely and quality care to each resident including one residents out of 28 sampled (Resident B1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to correctly post nurse staffing information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards on one of two floors (second floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control tracking log and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain and implement a comprehensive program to monitor and prevent infections in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect the personal privacy rights of one of six residents sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's comprehensive care plan included the care the resident required to attain the resident's highest practical physical well-being for one resident out of six reviewed (Resident 1). Findings including: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include a displaced fracture of the right lower leg (broken ankle) with history of falls. An interview and observation of Resident 1 at 10:00AM on July 23, 2024, revealed that the resident had a blue hard cast on her right leg, that extended from the base of her toes to just below her knee. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice for one resident (Resident 1) out of six residents reviewed by failing to assure prompt and necessary treatment for treatment for a resident's complaints of physical discomfort, painful urination, which delayed diagnosis and treatment of a salmonella infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review clinical records and facility documentation and interviews with residents and staff it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate that its quality assurance program fully investigated and analyzed causes of adverse events, a resident's diagnosed salmonella infection, to evaluate the adequacy of the facility's response to the foodborne illness and implement any applicable performance improvement activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility reports and the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident was free from sexual abuse (Resident 48) and the facility neglected to provide the necessary care and services to prevent psychosocial and/or physical harm and physical discomfort for two residents out of 21 sampled (Residents 21 and 80).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and a review of facility training and orientation records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all employees received training on the facility's abuse prohibition policy and facility specific-procedures.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and staff interviews, it was revealed that the facility failed to promptly report instances of resident abuse to the State Survey Agency, and submit completed abuse investigations to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident, for three out of four allegations of abuse reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy and information provided by the facility it was determined the facility failed to promptly conduct a thorough investigation into instances of sexual abuse, protect other female residents from the potential for further abuse during the investigation and submit the completed investigation to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident as evidenced by one of 14 residents reviewed (Resident 8) and failed to thoroughly investigate injuries of unknown origin, ankle fracture, to rule out abuse, neglect or mistreatment as the potential cause for one out of 21 sampled residents (Residents 48).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notice of the facility's bed hold policy to a resident and the resident's representative upon the resident's transfer to the hospital for six residents out of the 21 sampled (Residents 2, 7, 24, 53, 72, and 188).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to fully assess and implement individualized measures planned for the toileting needs of three residents out of 5 sampled for a decline in continence (Residents 51,15, and 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently and accurately monitor resident weights to timely identify changes in nutritional parameters for three residents out of 21 sampled (Residents 21, 7, and 53).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement individualized pain management program, consistent with professional standards of practice, to meet the pain management needs of one of 21 residents reviewed (Resident 48).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the provision of consistent and timely physician services for one of 21 sampled residents (Resident 48).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policies and interviews with staff and residents it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to provide timely and quality care to each resident including three residents out of 21 sampled (Resident 7, 21, 80).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff, involved in the direct care of residents, who possess the appropriate skills and competencies to promptly identify and address an escalation in inappropriate sexual behaviors displayed by one resident (Resident 8) out of 21 sampled to maintain the safety and well-being of other residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's assessment, select facility policies and procedures, and resident clinical records, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to document a facility-wide assessment to identify the resources needed to meet the residents, including sufficient staff with the necessary skills and competencies to provide the needed care and services for residents with behavioral health care and dementia care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility QAPI meeting attendance records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that the required committee members met at least quarterly for one quarter out of three reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 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 of 21 sampled residents (Resident 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards on one of three resident care units (300 Hall).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to timely provide dental services required by one Medicaid Payor source resident out of the 21 sampled residents (Resident 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of facility's planned meal tickets, a review of clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate resident's food allergies and provide weight loss interventions for one resident, Resident 53, out of 21 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain infection control practices during administration of resident medication by one nurse out of two observed administering medications (Employee 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility policy, and the facility's infection assessment tool, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to consistently implement its antibiotic stewardship protocols for initiating antibiotic use for two residents out of 21 sampled. (Resident 2 and Resident 188)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and facility-initiated transfer notices and a staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notices of facility-initiated hospital transfers to the resident and their representative and failed to provide a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for six residents out of the 21 sampled (Resident 2, 7, 24, 53, 72, and 188).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to timely notify a resident's responsible representative of injuries sustained by one resident out of eight sampled (Resident A1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and fall reports and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to consistently implement planned fall prevention interventions for a resident identified a high risk for falls for one resident out of eight sampled (Resident B1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assure timely and completely documented clinical records, according to professional standards, for one of eight sampled residents (Resident A1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to afford residents the resident to choose daily activities, including sleeping and waking times, as evidenced by three out of 12 residents sampled (Residents 2, 5, and 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly assess and evaluate bowel and bladder function and implement individualized approaches to restore normal bowel and bladder function to the extent possible for three out of six sampled residents (Resident CR1, 2, and 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely consult with the physician regarding a significant change in mental status and behavioral symptoms displayed by one resident out of six sampled (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate and identifiable clinical records for one of six sampled residents (Resident CR1).
10 fire safety citations on file: 4 on March 6, 2026, 2 on January 22, 2026, 2 on May 21, 2025, 2 on June 28, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2024 | Fine | $113,348 |
| May 15, 2024 | Payment Denial | 56 days from August 15, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | not reported | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: This facility did not submit staffing data.
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 October to December 2025, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.74 on weekdays and 3.37 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.02 in April to June 2025 to 3.63 in October to December 2025.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.63 | 0.59 | 3.74 | 3.37 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.72 | 0.52 | 3.87 | 3.34 | 7.3% | 0 of 92 | 96 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.02 | 0.47 | 4.14 | 3.71 | 13.9% | 0 of 91 | 95 |
| United States, Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.76 | 0.62 | 3.93 | 3.34 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.71 | 0.65 | 3.85 | 3.36 | 10.9% | 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 | 10.0 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.2 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.5 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.1 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.7 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Linwood Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.2% 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. 177 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 205 eligible stays.
6.0% 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. 94 eligible stays.
29.1% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 79 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. 94 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. 94 residents counted.
91.7% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 36 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: PENNSYLVANIA LTC INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania LTC Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/06/1990 |
| Rowe, William | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/02/2011 | |
| Delozier, Arthur | Corporate director | Individual | 06/12/2013 | |
| Duggan, Timothy | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2010 | |
| Waldrop, Mark | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| Rowe, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2010 | |
| Waldrop, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| The Guardian Foundation Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/06/1990 |
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.
Licensed assisted living residences and personal care homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its Pennsylvania licence record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.