Home / Pennsylvania / Hazleton
403 Hazle Township Boulevard, Hazleton, PA 18202 · Luzerne County · (570) 454-8888
297 certified beds, about 227 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395582 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 7, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 53 health citations since May 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $171,403 in the last three years; the largest was $171,403, and the latest is dated March 20, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.35 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.33 of those hours.
36.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Saber Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 126 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 53 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, physician orders, facility documentation, and interviews with staff and the resident's family, it was determined the facility failed to honor and implement the resident representative's end-of-life treatment decisions by failing to facilitate and implement requested hospice services after the resident representative authorized hospice care and requested a change in the resident's Pennsylvania Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) order, for one of three residents reviewed (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility policy, dental consultation records, documentation from the dental provider, and staff and resident representative interviews, it was determined the facility failed to assist a resident in obtaining timely medically necessary dental services after a fractured tooth requiring extraction was identified, for one of 13 residents reviewed (Resident CR1) for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility policy, observations, facility-provided investigative documentation, security camera evidence, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure appropriate supervision and implementation of safety interventions to protect a resident from accident hazards (medications) and elopement from the facility. This failure resulted in actual physical harm for one out of 10 residents sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, clinical records, information submitted by the facility, and select investigative reports and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to assure that one resident (Resident 2) out of 15 sampled were free from physical abuse perpetrated by another resident (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's Plan of Correction from the survey ending February 7, 2025, the results of the revisit survey conducted on March 27, 2025, clinical record review, facility-submitted documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement and sustain corrective actions through its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program to prevent the recurrence of deficiencies related to abuse prevention for one resident out of 15 residents reviewed. (Resident 1)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy, facility grievance forms, and resident, family and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to make ongoing efforts to resolve grievances and the provision of timely follow-up with residents and/or their representative regarding the status update on the resolution progress of a grievance for three of seven residents reviewed (Residents 107, 15 and 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, clinical records, information submitted by the facility, and select investigative reports and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to assure that two residents (Residents 366 and 52) out of 35 sampled were free from physical abuse perpetrated by another resident (Resident 180).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and 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 two residents out of 35 sampled (Resident 179 and Resident 159).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility investigative reports, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement effective safety measures to prevent an injury during transfer for one out of the 35 sampled residents (Resident 157).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility investigative reports, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete clinical records, in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (1) of 35 sampled residents (Resident 266).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to offer and/or provide the influenza immunization, unless the immunization was medically contraindicated or the resident had already been immunized, to one resident out of five residents reviewed for administration of the flu vaccine. (Resident 110).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to monitor and evaluate weight and hydration requirements of a resident to ensure acceptable parameters of nutritional status are maintained to the extent possible for one resident out of six sampled (Resident A1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and select investigative reports, and interviews with staff, residents and resident representatives, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident was free from sexual abuse and resultant psychosocial harm (Resident 16) and that one resident (Resident 106) was free from physical abuse out of 11 residents sampled for abuse prohibition.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and select investigative reports, and interviews with staff, residents, and resident representatives, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their established procedures for responding to an incident of sexual abuse of one resident (Resident 16) perpetrated by another resident (Resident 91) out of 11 residents reviewed for abuse prohibition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility incident reports and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and maintain an environment free of accident hazards to prevent a minor injury (a cut to the thumb) sustained by one of 11 sampled residents (Resident 65).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff possessed the appropriate competencies and skill sets to conduct a thorough resident assessment of residents following an incident of sexual abuse involving two out of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 16 and Resident 91)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's plan of correction from the survey of April 19, 2024, and the findings of the survey ending July 10, 2024, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to develop and implement corrective action plans to prevent a continued quality deficiency related to abuse prohibition to ensure that plans designed to improve the delivery of care and services were consistently implemented to effectively deter future quality deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility policy, observations, and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary supervision and effective safety measures to monitor a resident's whereabouts and prevent an elopement by one resident (Resident 181) out of 14 sampled residents, placing the 65 residents out of 238 residents residing in the facility, identified at risk for elopement, including Resident 142, in immediate jeopardy to their health and safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, the facility's diet manual and select facility incident reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident identified with swallowing difficulties was consistently served food in a form to meet the resident's individual needs, which caused a choking incident and aspiration (when food, drink, or foreign objects are breathed into the lungs) requiring hospitalization of one of 14 residents reviewed (Resident 196). Findings Include: Review of Resident 196's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of resident's current care plan dated March 5, 2024, and in effect on April 21, 2024, revealed the resident required the assistance of one staff person with eating. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policies, investigate reports, and employee job descriptions it was determined the facility's administration failed to effectively use its resources to promote resident safety by failing to implement established procedures to monitor resident whereabouts and prevent an elopement for one out of 16 sampled residents (Resident 181 ).
Inspectors wroteBased on review clinical records, and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner and environment, which promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance as reported by two residents out of 14 residents sampled (Residents 14 and Anonymous Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select incident reports, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dependent residents with the necessary feeding assistance to promote safe swallowing for one of 14 residents sampled (Resident 196).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the provision of a nourishing (satisfying to the resident) evening snack for one resident out of 14 sampled (Resident 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and select investigative reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that six residents (Residents 212, 93, 203, 178, 487, and 152) were free from physical abuse perpetrated by other residents (Residents 3, 188, 225, 212, 221, 213, and 56) out of 41 residents sampled for abuse prevention, which resulted in serious harm and injury to one resident, a fractured leg and hip (Resident 203).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness in the food and nutrition services department and one of five resident pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean and orderly environment on four of five resident units (Nursing Unit 2, 3, 4, 5 in the blue and white buildings)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of select facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make information and forms accessible regarding the facility's grievance/complaint process and the residents' rights to file a grievance anonymously in prominent locations on four of seven floors in the facility (blue and white buildings).
Inspectors wroteBased on select facility policy and clinical records, observations, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to consistently administer oxygen as ordered and maintain sanitary oxygen delivery systems for six out of 35 sampled residents (Resident 8, 26, 48, 59, 64 and 124).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records and facility investigations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff, providing direct services to residents, who possess the necessary competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident as evidenced by three residents out of 35 sampled (Residents 213, 214, and 188).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of select facility policy, clinical records and reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and/or implement individualized plans to manage residents' dementia-related behavioral symptoms to promote resident safety and highest practicable physical and mental well-being for four residents out of 35 sampled (Residents 138, 213, 221 and 225).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and a review of the facility's assessment and the medical, psychiatric, and mental health conditions of the resident census it was determined that the facility failed to conduct and document a facility wide assessment, which identified the specific resources necessary to care for its specific resident population.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to incorporate preferred resident schedules into the residents' daily routine and to allow resident to make choices about aspects of their life that were important to them as evidenced by three of 35 sampled residents (Resident 19, 26 and 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to render trauma informed care to a resident with a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for one out of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 29).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors for one resident out of (Resident 103) out of 35 sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policies, investigate reports, and employee job descriptions it was determined the facility's administration failed to effectively use its resources to promote resident safety by failing to implement established procedures to prevent physical abuse of six out of 41 sampled residents (Residents 212, 93, 203, 178, 487, and 213).
Inspectors wroteBased on review clinical records, facility provided documentation, grievances lodged with the facility, and the minutes from Resident Council meetings, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner and environment, which promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance as reported by 15 residents out of 33 interviewed (Residents 6, 17, 24, 27, 43, 53, 54, 58, 72, 77, 112, 113,117, 141 and 163).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and orderly environment in resident areas on four of five nursing units (Blue Building Unit 200, 300, [NAME] Building Unit 100 and 200).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of grievances lodged with the facility and the minutes from Residents' Council meetings and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner and environment that promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance, including experiences reported by five alert and oriented residents out of 16 sampled (Residents 1, 2, 11, 16, and 17).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently implement a resident's plan of care to assure the use of the necessary level of staff assistance and assistance device to perform safe transfers of one resident out of 20 sampled (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, and facility investigative reports, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident out of the eight sampled residents was free from physical abuse (Resident 2). Findings including: A review of a facility policy entitled Pennsylvania Resident Abuse: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, dated August 30, 2023, revealed that it is the policy of the facility to not tolerate abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation of residents, or misappropriation of resident property by anyone. The policy defines abuse as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to permit a resident to remain in the facility and not discharge the resident except for defined necessary reasons and failed to ensure the presence of necessary documentation supporting the specific reasons for discharge of one resident out of three residents reviewed (Resident 2)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a policy and procedure to ensure that a resident transferred from the facility with the expectation of returning to the facility was permitted to return or met the specific requirements for a facility initiated discharge for one out of three discharged residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store resident care equipment and supplies in a sanitary and orderly manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations during a tour of the dietary department equipment storage area and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable food services sanitation practices for the preparation and service of food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to store drugs and pharmacy supplies in a safe and sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness in the food and nutrition services department and two of three resident pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of minutes from Resident Council meetings and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to promptly resolve continued resident complaints and grievances expressed during Resident Council meetings, including those voiced by five (5) of seven (7) residents (Residents 98, 104, 121, 128, 174, 189, and 208).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards in one resident's room (Resident 70) and failed to timely and adequately address factors contributing to repeated falls for one resident (Resident 182) out of 35 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate timely and consistent monitoring of nutritional paramaters, resident weights, and timely assessment of resident's nutritional status and needs to ensure prompt implementation of measures to prevent continued weight loss for two residents out of four sampled with significant weight loss (Resident 41 and 211)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff consistently provided a functional communication system to maintain the resident's ability to communicate for two residents out of 35 sampled (Residents 140 and 70).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and select facility investigations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly assess and evaluate a resident's bladder and bowel habits and toileting needs to develop individualized approaches to maintain continence and meet the resident's needs for toileting assistance to the extent possible for one resident (Resident 182) out of 35 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident received the necessary behavioral health care in a timely manner to attain or maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for one of 12 residents sampled (Resident 40).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to address a resident's dementia-related behavioral symptoms for one out of five residents (Resident 36)
10 fire safety citations on file: 4 on February 7, 2025, 3 on April 19, 2024, 3 on May 12, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 20, 2024 | Fine | $171,403 |
| March 20, 2024 | Payment Denial | 39 days from June 20, 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) | 3.35 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.33 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.03 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.2% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 45.5% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.98 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 3.47 on weekdays and 3.03 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.42 in April to June 2025 to 3.35 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 | 3.35 | 0.33 | 3.47 | 3.03 | 0.7% | 0 of 90 | 227 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.40 | 0.30 | 3.51 | 3.14 | 1.5% | 0 of 92 | 218 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.38 | 0.32 | 3.50 | 3.08 | 5.6% | 0 of 92 | 220 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.42 | 0.32 | 3.54 | 3.14 | 7.1% | 0 of 91 | 215 |
| 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 | 29.3 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.7 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.0 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mountain City Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (43.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.9% 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. 212 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 207 eligible stays.
5.8% 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. 111 eligible stays.
28.7% 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. 87 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 114 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. 114 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. 24 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: MOUNTAIN CITY NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC. CMS links this home to Saber Healthcare Group, a group of 126 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volpe, Benjamin | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Weisberg, William | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Nicoluzakis, Gregory | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Weisberg, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Shg Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Sakalas, Lori | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/06/2024 | |
| Shutt, Patrice | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/15/2023 | |
| Weisberg, William | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2026 | |
| Benjamin N. Volpe Family Dynasty Trust (dated December 29, 2020) | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Bnv Dynasty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Cibc Bank USA | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/02/2022 | |
| Citrin Cooperman Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/12/2018 | |
| Decanted William I. Weisberg Family Dynasty Trust (dated Sept 30, 2020 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Mountain City Re Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/02/2022 | |
| Rkl LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/26/2023 | |
| Saber Governance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Saber Healthcare Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/12/2018 | |
| Shg Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Shg Recs, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/02/2022 | |
| Wiw Dynasty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Benyo, Philip | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/12/2018 | |
| Nicoluzakis, Gregory | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Sakalas, Lori | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/06/2024 | |
| Shutt, Patrice | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/15/2023 | |
| Volpe, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2019 | |
| Weisberg, William | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/12/2018 |
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.