Home / Pennsylvania / Shenandoah
200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Shenandoah, PA 17976 · Schuylkill County · (570) 462-1921
111 certified beds, about 95 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395929 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 20, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 72 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $333,638 in the last three years; the largest was $160,022, and the latest is dated December 20, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.51 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.63 of those hours.
84.9% 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 72 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, and resident, resident representative, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide person-centered care by failing to follow physician's orders for the consistent application of prescribed therapeutic measures, compression stockings, for two residents out of 26 sampled (Residents 25 and 66).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promotes and enhances each resident's dignity and quality of life by failing to respond in a timely manner to residents' requests for assistance for 1 resident out of 26 residents reviewed. (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident council meeting minutes, review of resident activities fundraising account information, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the views and recommendations of residents regarding life in the facility were considered, including decisions related to the use of resident activity fundraising funds, for five of five residents interviewed (Residents 53, 54, 61, 75, and 76).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to include sufficient minimum healthcare information in the resident's baseline care plan to address the resident's immediate safety needs upon admission for 1 of 26 residents sampled (Resident 74).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and resident representative and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address dental needs for one out of 26 residents sampled (Resident 66).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to maintain accurate records of controlled medications and ensure accurate administration of controlled drugs for 1 of 26 residents sampled (Resident 56).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to adhere to acceptable storage and labeling for multi-dose medication vials in two of two medication storage rooms (second and third floor medication rooms).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy, payor source data, and resident representative and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure timely and necessary dental services for one resident who is a Medicaid recipient (Resident 66) out of 26 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure clinical records were accurate and complete and reflective of the resident's current status for two of 26 sampled residents (Residents 7 and 85).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, select facility policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement physician-ordered infection control precautions for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 10)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, 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 demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and documented competencies necessary to safely care for a resident with a central tunneled line catheter for one out of 26 residents reviewed (Resident 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's surety bond, resident fund accounts, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the amount of the surety bond was sufficient to cover the total amount of resident funds held by the facility on two of three months reviewed (February 2026 and March 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility staffing information, Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate submission of staffing information to the PBJ system for one of two quarters reviewed (Quarter 4 2025).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, select facility policies, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free from potential accident hazards related to unsecured medications on two out of two nursing units reviewed (Units 2 and 3) and for three out of eight residents sampled (Residents 1, 5, and 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance, including experiences reported by three residents out of 19 residents sampled (Residents 5, 68, and 80) and one resident representative (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility policy, and resident representative and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to timely notify the resident's representative of a hospitalization after a fall for one resident out of 19 sampled (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, select facility policy review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident (Resident 53) of an 18 resident sample was free of chemical restraints that were not necessary to treat the resident's medical symptoms, were without justification, and did not demonstrate individualized, nonpharmacological approaches to careFindings include:A review of the facility policy, Identifying Involuntary Seclusion and Unauthorized Restraint, last reviewed on April 15, 2025, defines a chemical restraint as any drug used for discipline or staff convenience, and not required to treat medical symptoms. The policy further indicated residents must be free from chemical restraints not used to address medical conditions. [...]
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 19 sampled (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, observation, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to incorporate and address an identified resident preference and behavior into the care planning process for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, observation, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was administered per physician's orders for one resident out of 19 sampled (Resident 70).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure biologicals were stored within their manufacturer ' s expiration date in one of two medication storage areas (third-floor nursing unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, a review of clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to post a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent state agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that residents may file a complaint with the state survey agency concerning any suspected violation of state or federal nursing facility regulation in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents and resident representatives in one of two nursing units sampled (Nursing 2nd Floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies, the facility diet manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess, evaluate, and monitor the nutritional parameters of residents with significant weight loss for two of 18 residents reviewed (Residents 27 and 69).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments accurately reflected the status of two residents out of 18 sampled (Residents 9 and 31).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address dental needs for one out of 18 residents sampled (Resident 31).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice by not ensuring the consistent application of physician-ordered preventative measures for safety for one of 18 residents sampled (Resident 39).
Inspectors wroteBased on the facility's accounts payable ledger and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to comply with Federal, State, and Local laws and professional standards by not ensuring timely payment for goods and services necessary for daily operations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and interview it was determined, the facility failed to implement effective infection prevention and control practices regarding activities of daily living (ADLs), including toileting, bathing, and bed maintenance, for one of 20 sampled residents (Resident 34).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records, and select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the self-administration of medications was clinically appropriate for one of the 20 residents sampled (Resident 63).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping services to maintain a clean, sanitary, and homelike environment in one of the two nursing halls (second-floor nursing unit). Findings Include: An observation conducted on March 13, 2025, at approximately 9:00 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed Resident 34 sitting in urine and feces-soaked linens that had leaked onto the floor. The floor beneath the bed and surrounding area was visibly soiled with brown and yellow liquid, emitting a foul, overpowering odor. The unsanitary conditions were immediately apparent from the hallway, creating an environment that was both demeaning and hazardous to the resident's dignity and well-being. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to thoroughly assess, obtain physician orders, and develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan in accordance with standards of practice for one resident out of 20 sampled residents. (Resident 34)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, 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 and sufficient staff supervision to prevent falls for one out of 20 sampled residents (Resident 35) and maintain a safe environment for three out of 20 sampled residents (Residents 52, 55, and 56).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and a review of employee credentials, it was determined the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified director of food and nutrition services and failed to ensure the registered dietitian (RD) provided the required on-site oversight of the food and nutrition services department.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and select investigative reports, and interviews with staff and residents it was determined the facility failed to ensure that one resident (resident 2) out of 7 residents sampled was free from sexual abuse and resultant psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the needs, interests, preferences,and functional abilities of four residents out of 18 sampled residents (Residents 18, 16, 19, and 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility investigative reports, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement effective interventions, including staff supervision, to promote resident safety and prevent repeated falls for one resident (Resident 52) and further failed to implement effective interventions to prevent a fall for one resident (Resident 49) of four sampled residents and failed to maintain a safe environment in one of 3 resident shower rooms on the third floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on the facility's accounts payable ledger and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to comply with Federal, State, and Local laws and professional standards by not ensuring timely payment for goods and services necessary for daily operations.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility personnel, select facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined the facility did not have one or more individuals serving as the Infection Preventionist (IP) responsible for the facility's infection prevention plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident out of 25 sampled (Resident 29) was free from physical abuse, perpetrated by another resident, (Resident 2) which resulted in physical injury, a concussion, to the resident victim.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, CDC infection control guidance, facility's infection control policy and COVID-19 testing logs, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to promptly implement infection control practices for cohorting like respiratory infections and testing for COVID-19 to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infections in the facility placing at least four residents (Residents 61, 73, 63 and 77) at increased risk for contracting COVID and failed to implement effective interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, minutes from Residents' Council meetings, and grievances filed with the facility, 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 for six residents out of the 25 sampled (Residents 2, 20, 29, 33, 75, and 84) and experiences reported by three out of the five residents during a resident group interview (Residents 1, 26, and 83).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and orderly environment in two of the two nursing halls (Nursing Units 2 and 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of scheduled facility mealtimes and select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide snacks as desired by residents including four out of the 25 residents sampled (Residents 2, 20, 29, and 84) and experiences reported by residents during a group interview (Residents 1, 26, 27, 83, and 89).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, the facility's abuse prohibition policy, and facility investigation reports, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to timely and accurately report allegations of resident abuse for one resident out of 25 sampled (Resident 29) perpetrated by another resident (Resident 2) to the State Survey Agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement individualized interventions to address a resident's decline in bowel continence in an effort to restore normal bowel function to the extent possible for one resident out of three sampled (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased observations, review of monitoring logs and reference information, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage a of food to prevent the potential for microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe and orderly environment on the second and third floor units of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to promptly provide recommended and/or prescribed pressure relieving measures to prevent pressure sore development and promote healing for two of six residents sampled with pressure sores (Resident 2 and Resident 3).
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.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record and facility policy review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that in preparation for room change each resident/resident representative received written notice, including the reason for the change before the resident's room was changed for four of 24 room changes completed by the facility from April 2, 2024, through April 24, 2024 (Residents B1, B2, B3 and B4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility polity, the minutes from Resident Council Meetings and grievance logs and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate timely action to resolve resident grievances raised at resident group meetings and keep the residents apprised of the status of the facility's decisions and efforts toward grievance resolution.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment on two of two resident units (Second and Third Floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards and obstacles to safe mobility and use of mobility assistance devices on two of the two nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the facility's planned written menus and menu extensions, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow planned written menus and failed to ensure that the facility's dietitian periodically reviewed the always available menu for appropriateness of the corresponding menu extensions for residents prescribed a therapeutic diet, including Resident A1.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the minutes from Residents' Council meetings, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to routinely offer evening snacks to residents including Residents A2, A3, A4, and A5).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's plan of correction from the survey ending January 26, 2024, the outcome of the activities of the facility's quality assurance committee, current staffing of the facility's food and nutrition services department, menus and menu extensions, observations and interviews it was determined that the facility's procedures failed to effectively identify ongoing deficient practices related to the facility's food and nutrition services department, and its lack of effective oversight, and implement effective plans to correct and prevent further quality deficiencies related to menus, snacks and food service sanitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed provide care in a manner that promotes each resident's quality of life by failing to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance including one resident out of 19 sampled (Residents A2)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to provide trauma-informed care to a resident with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for one resident out of three sampled with a diagnosis of PTSD (Resident M1).
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.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of the needs of bariatric residents' for showering equipment for two of two bariatric residents reviewed (Residents 11 and 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and the minutes from Residents' Council meetings and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to put forth sufficient efforts to promptly resolve resident complaints/grievances expressed during Resident Council Meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in an manner that enhances each resident's quality of life by failing to assist residents in maintaining a dignified personal appearance as preferred by for one resident out of 25 sampled (Resident 11) and failed to respond timely to residents' requests for assistance as reported by two residents (Residents 11 and 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized discharge plan for one of 25 residents sampled (Resident 11). Findings Include: A review of the clinical record of Resident 11 revealed admission to the facility on June 18, 2022. A quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS- standardized assessment process conducted at periodic intervals to plan resident care) dated December 20, 2023, revealed that the resident had a BIMS (brief interview to aid in detecting cognitive impairment) score of 15, indicating that his cognition was intact. Review of Resident 11's care plan, initially dated December 9, 2022, indicated that that discharge planning was complete, and the resident will acclimate to nursing facility placement as skilled nursing facility placement remains appropriate. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain respiratory and oxygen equipment in a manner to promote optimal functioning for one resident out of 25 sampled residents (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and transfer notices and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficiently detailed written notices of facility initiated transfers to the resident and the resident's representative for one out of three residents reviewed (Resident 2)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility reports, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently implement planned individualized safety measures designed to prevent falls and injury and ensure that planned fall prevention approaches do not create a potential accident hazard for one resident identified at high risk for falls (Resident 60) out of 21 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide nursing services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to follow physician's orders for treatment of one resident (Resident 83), medication administration for one resident (Resident 73) and failing to demonstrate ongoing monitor and assessment of a resident's edema for one resident (Resident 36) out of nine sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, a review of clinical records and incident reports, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent the development of pressure ulcers for one resident out of two sampled residents (Resident 36).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were labeled according to accepted labeling requirements for one of four residents sampled (Resident 83).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interviews it was revealed that the facility failed to provide quality care as evidenced by the facility's failure to administer physician prescribed medications within scheduled/prescribed timeframes for 11 residents out of 15 sampled (Residents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident clinical records and staff interview it was revealed that the facility failed to ensure that three of 15 residents reviewed were free of significant medication errors (Residents 14, 15 and 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and clinical records, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the effective use of resources designed to maintain residents' highest practicable physical well-being by failing to efficiently implement procedures to continue resident care during a disruption in internet and telephone services, which resulted in significantly late medication administration for residents on one of two nursing units.
8 fire safety citations on file: 4 on March 20, 2026, 3 on May 23, 2025, 1 on July 23, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 20, 2024 | Fine | $69,962 |
| December 20, 2024 | Payment Denial | 73 days from February 15, 2025 |
| July 26, 2024 | Fine | $103,654 |
| July 26, 2024 | Payment Denial | 66 days from September 14, 2024 |
| January 26, 2024 | Fine | $160,022 |
| January 26, 2024 | Payment Denial | 138 days from February 29, 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) | 3.51 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.33 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.16 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 84.9% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.69 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 3.59 on weekdays and 3.33 on weekends, 7% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 13.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.68 in April to June 2025 to 3.51 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 | 3.51 | 0.63 | 3.59 | 3.33 | 13.3% | 0 of 90 | 95 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 1.40 | 0.68 | 1.53 | 1.05 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.39 | 0.66 | 3.57 | 2.93 | 12.4% | 7 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.68 | 0.73 | 3.90 | 3.11 | 33.3% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| 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 | 7.7 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.1 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.2 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.6 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.2 | 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 | 5.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ridgeview Healthcare & Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (33.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
33.1% 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. 55 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 92 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. 14 eligible stays.
57.7% 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. 26 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. 41 residents counted.
7.2% 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. 41 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. 2 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: SHENANDOAH HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yurman, Kalman | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 11/01/2020 |
| Vandermark, Jennifer | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 11/09/2020 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.