Home / Pennsylvania / Sayre
151 Keefer Lane, Sayre, PA 18840 · Bradford County · (570) 888-2192
90 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395101 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 3, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
None of its 42 health citations since April 2024 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.21 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.48 of those hours.
54.2% 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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess potential entrapment risks from the use of side rails for four of four residents reviewed for accident hazards (Residents 5, 42, 6, and 70).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate less than five percent (Residents 10 and 59).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and maintain food service equipment and envrionment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected residents' status for three of 24 residents reviewed (Residents 5, 30, and 55).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practical care regarding a physician ordered fluid restriction for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 43).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent a resident fall for one of seven residents reviewed for falls (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care for a BiPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure)/CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) device consistent with professional standards of practice one of one resident reviewed for respiratory concerns (Resident 29).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a trauma-informed plan of care for one of one resident reviewed for behavioral-emotional concerns (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accurate acquiring and administration of medications to meet the needs of one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 29).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist reported potential medication irregularities to the attending physician and that the physician provided an appropriate timely response for one of five residents reviewed for medication regimen review (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate clinical documentation for 1 of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the notice of transfer or discharge included the required contents for three of six residents reviewed for hospitalization concerns (Residents 2, 6, and 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data for a minimum of 18 months for three of three months reviewed (January, February, and March 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review, review of facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the necessary resident information was documented by the physician to facilitate a facility-initiated transfer of a resident to another facility for one of one resident reviewed for a facility-initiated transfer (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review, review of facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer before discharge to a resident's responsible party for a facility-initiated discharge for one of one resident reviewed for a facility- initiated discharge (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a manner to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness in the main kitchen and the facility's pantry for one of two nursing units (Unit 1 Nursing Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to honor advance directive choices for one of 24 residents reviewed (Resident 175).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the required notification to a resident whose payment coverage changed for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment on one of two nursing units reviewed (Nursing Unit 2; Residents 24, 50, and 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, employee personnel records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an abuse prohibition policy that required a thorough investigation of prospective employee's employment history for one of five newly hired employees reviewed (Employee 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for two of 18 residents reviewed (Residents 44 and 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a discharge summary with the necessary components for one of three closed records reviewed (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services to maintain or improve the ability to perform activities of daily living for two of five residents reviewed for rehabilitation concerns (Residents 5 and 44).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician orders for two of 18 residents reviewed (Residents 52 and 21).
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide recommended interventions, that are consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing of a pressure ulcer for one of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care and services for two of two residents reviewed (Residents 36 and 54).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide behavioral health interventions for a resident to maintain the highest practicable mental well-being for one of two residents reviewed for behavioral concerns (Resident 44).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to securely store medications on one of two nursing units (Unit One dining room); and failed to ensure medication labeling for one of seven residents observed for medication administration (Resident 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain dental services for one of four residents reviewed for dental concerns (Resident 52).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement appropriate enhanced barrier transmission-based precautions for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 75)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policy and procedures, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow established procedures of water storage to ensure that water is available to essential areas when there is a loss of normal water supply for two of two nursing units (Unit 1 and Unit 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide the required notification timely to a resident whose payment coverage changed for two of three residents reviewed (Residents 58 and 83).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an environment free of potential accident hazards in the beauty shop.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in a sanitary manner and proper working order in the facility's main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement appropriate enhanced barrier transmission-based precautions for three of 18 residents reviewed (Residents 23, 20, and 51); and ensure hygienically clean resident laundry processing in the main laundry.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practicable care for a resident with an indwelling central line catheter for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident 20).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to identify triggers related to a resident's diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, to provide culturally, competent, trauma-informed care, and to eliminate or mitigate re-traumatization for one of five residents reviewed for mood/behavior (Resident 32).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered care plan to address dementia and cognitive loss displayed by one of one resident reviewed (Resident 31).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist reviewed the drug regimen of each resident and reported any irregularities to the attending physician monthly for two of five residents reviewed for potentially unnecessary medications (Residents 26 and 24).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, review of select manufacture's guidelines, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent (Residents 24 and 132).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the administration of a COVID-19 immunization for one of five residents reviewed for immunization concerns (Resident 45).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, review of select facility policies and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to perform an accurate assessment for possible entrapment with the use of specialized mattress and side rails for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 51).
13 fire safety citations on file: 4 on April 3, 2026, 5 on March 7, 2025, 4 on April 19, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.21 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.48 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.98 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.75 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.2% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.58 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 3.24 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 3% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.01 in April to June 2025 to 3.21 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 | 3.21 | 0.48 | 3.24 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.26 | 0.26 | 2.20 | 2.40 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.70 | 0.32 | 2.74 | 2.58 | 0.4% | 1 of 92 | 75 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.01 | 0.42 | 3.10 | 2.78 | 5.3% | 0 of 91 | 75 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.6 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.6 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.3 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.8 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.8 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sayre Health Care 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. 250 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 246 eligible stays.
9.0% 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. 136 eligible stays.
64.1% 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. 131 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. 169 residents counted.
3.1% 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. 169 residents counted.
99.0% 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. 99 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: SAYRE HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Fidelity Deposits & Discounts Bank | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 11/01/2011 | |
| Kammerer, William | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/29/2016 | |
| Senior Health Care Solutions LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2011 | |
| Kammerer, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/29/2016 | |
| Keefer, Susan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2011 | |
| Kelly, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2011 |
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.